Star Rating Roads for Safety Results for Consultation with Stakeholders

GREECE

http://sensorproject.eu/

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE The SENSoR Project

About SENSOR

The road infrastructure of a country not only serves the basic need for safe transport of people and goods but is also considered vital for its growth and development. Decisions for public and private investments, related to these infrastructures must take into consideration the overall level of their safety capacity in a measurable way. Road traffic injuries are a global, man-made and preventable epidemic with a health burden on the scale of HIV/AIDS and Malaria. According to the World Health Organization, about 1.24 million people die every year as a result of road traffic crashes, while the annual number of road deaths worldwide is projected to increase to about 2.4 million by 2030. Specifically in the European Union, more than 30,000 persons were killed and about 1,5 million persons were injured in more than 1.1 million car accidents. On this basis, the United Nations announced in 2010 the Global Plan for the Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020. The Plan encourages countries and stakeholders to implement actions that contribute to the reduction of the forecasted road fatalities rate. The categories of activities (pillars) that the Plan proposes as focusing areas are: building road safety management capacity; improving the safety of road infrastructure and broader transport networks; further developing the safety of vehicles; enhancing the behaviour of road users; and improving post-crash care. Focusing on the Infrastructure pillar, the countries should be able to assess the safety capacity of the road network for all road users and further implement infrastructure improvements through targeted investment programs. Moreover, the European Directive 2008/96/EC on Road Safety Infrastructure Management provided the requirements for safety management of the Trans-European Road Network that include Road Safety Inspection, Safety Ranking and Audits, suggesting investments on road sections with the highest number of collisions and/or the highest collision reduction potential. Within this framework the South East Neighbourhood Safe Routes (SENSoR) project has taken safety rating to the next level – moving from measurement to action by assessing the risks that road users face from infrastructure and by identifying the potential improvements that can save the most lives for the money available. To do so, the Project Partners applied the latest tools of the International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP), a charity supporting countries and financial institutions worldwide during the UN Decade. The results give GPS- mapped sites where improvements, often as simple as barriers, school crossings or roadside hazard clearance, can make the difference. SENSoR builds on outstanding cooperation between automobile clubs, universities and road authorities. Having been co-financed by the South East Europe (SEE) Transnational Cooperation Programme and the European Union, the 2-year project brought together 14 countries – Greece, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Republic of Moldova, Serbia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Albania, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine. The project was launched in September 2012 and finished in September 2014. It included the road inspection, coding, analyses and reporting of RAP road safety assessments of almost 16,000 km in the above mentioned countries. The current report presents the Star Rating results for a 3,600 km part of the major road network in Greece. The assessment was performed by S. Efstathiadis & Associates, LLP (TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS), which is an accredited RAP supplier.

For more information, contact Stelios Efstathiadis, phone: (+30) 2109577077, mobile: (+30) 6944747707, e-mail: [email protected].

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE SENSoR Star Rating Coverage

Figure 1: SENSoR Star Rating Coverage Map

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

[Page intentionally left blank]

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

Contents 1 Introduction ...... 2 1.1 Road Assessment in Greece ...... 2 1.2 “Results for consultation with stakeholders” ...... 2 1.3 The RAP Method ...... 3 1.3.1 Measuring the road infrastructure safety ...... 4 1.3.2 The Star Rating process ...... 4 1.3.3 Developing the Safer Road Investment Plans (SRIPs) ...... 5 2 The inspected road network ...... 7 2.1.1 Coverage and basic characteristics ...... 7 2.1.2 Details of the recorded road attributes ...... 15 3 Data collection and coding ...... 27 3.1 Road Survey ...... 27 3.1.1 Road Survey Equipment ...... 27 3.1.2 Coding Team ...... 28 3.2 Data coding...... 28 3.2.1 Traffic Volume ...... 29 3.2.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle volume ...... 29 3.2.3 Operating Speed ...... 31 3.2.4 Crash Data ...... 32 3.2.5 Countermeasures costs ...... 32 3.2.6 Economic data ...... 32 4 Star Rating Results ...... 33 4.1 Overall Star Ratings Results ...... 33 4.2 Detailed Star Ratings Results ...... 38 4.2.1 EO-6 – Section Velestino (A1) - Volos ...... 38 5 Safer Roads Investments Plan (SRIP) ...... 41 5.1 Overall SRIP Results ...... 41 5.2 Detailed SRIP Results ...... 47 5.2.1 EO-6 – Section Velestino (A1) – Volos ...... 47 6 Conclusions ...... 49 Annex 1 – Traffic Volumes and Operating Speeds ...... 51 Annex 2 – Countermeasure costs ...... 64 Annex 3 – Minimum 3-star safety rating standard ...... 68

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

1 Introduction

1.1 Road Assessment in Greece

The current report presents the Star Rating results for a 3,600 km part of the major road network in Greece. These results are only a part of the analysis of almost 16.000Km of the TEN-T road network in 14 countries in South East Europe, which was performed within the framework of the SENSoR Project. In Greece, according to the World Health Organization, the number of road fatalities is about 1,130 per year, the number of serious injuries is about 1,500 (ETSC, 2010-2013) and the estimated Gross Domestic Product loss due to road traffic crashes reaches the 2%.The Road Fatalities Rate in Greece is about 12.2per 100,000 people (WHO, 2013), which is one of the highest in Europe. Nevertheless, road deaths in Greece were reduced remarkably by 31% between 2010 and 2013mainly due to the economic crisis which affected traffic volumes and patterns seriously. Road user behaviour also improved with less aggressive driving, less speeding and increased use of seat belts and helmets following awareness campaigns, improved enforcement and infrastructure upgrades (ETSC, 2014).

Figure 2: Road Fatalities per 100,000 people

1.2 “Results for consultation with stakeholders”

This report is presented as “results for consultation with stakeholders” because the SENSoR Project Partners wish to discuss with those who influence the safety of roads and road infrastructure the detail of these surveys and the priorities and possibilities for investing to save lives and serious injuries.

Page 2

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

The results are based upon surveys carried out between September 2013 and November 2013 and upon data collected at other times and with the support of Project Partners, government and police agencies. The SENSoR project is grateful for this support. An outcome of the SENSoR project is that the individual participating countries now have a “Safer Roads Investment Plan” which may be used to prioritise spending on crash countermeasures. This Plan is not a “bill of works” and it and the assumptions used in the model must be carefully assessed by local engineers and others who have contributed to the work or who have a legitimate interest in the roads. In particular, they must assess such features as the value of life and injury used in the work, the data used in estimating injury savings, traffic volumes, countermeasure costs and operating speed on the network. The data for the SENSoR surveys are held in iRAP’s ViDA software. In circumstances where the printed output differs from that held in ViDA, the material held within the software takes precedence. The printed report provides the results of the survey and also gives an entry- level guide to the software and the analysis possibilities that are available within it. Any changes in the modelling assumptions, coding corrections, minor model changes or differences in the presentation of results (such as rounding) will always be reflected in results held in the ViDA software.

1.3 The RAP Method

The protocols used here were developed by the International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP). iRAP is a registered charity dedicated to saving lives through safer roads. iRAP provides tools and training to help countries make roads safe. Its activities include:  inspecting high-risk roads and developing Star Ratings, Safer Roads Investment Plans and Risk Maps  providing training, technology and support that will build and sustain national, regional and local capability  tracking road safety performance so that funding agencies can assess the benefits of their investments. The programme is the umbrella organisation for EuroRAP, AusRAP, usRAP, KiwiRAP and ChinaRAP. Road Assessment Programmes (RAP) is now active in more than 70 countries throughout Europe, Asia Pacific, North, Central and South America and Africa. iRAP is financially supported by the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society and the Road Safety Fund. Projects receive support from the Global Road Safety Facility, automobile associations, regional development banks and donors. National governments, automobile clubs and associations, charities, the motor industry and institutions such as the European Commission also support RAPs in the developed world and encourage the transfer of research and technology to iRAP. In addition, many individuals donate their time and expertise to support iRAP. iRAP is a member of the United Nations Road Safety Collaboration. The main objective of the RAP method is the improvement of the road users’ safety by proposing cost-effective investment plans. The most crucial point in the RAP is that engineers and planners in developed countries have for over twenty years adopted an underlying philosophy of designing a forgiving road system to minimize the chances of injuries when road users make mistakes that result in crashes. The method indicates that the severity of a road accident can be reduced through the intervention at the sequence of events happening during this accident. As it is known, an injury accident results from a chain of events, starting with an initial event, probably resulting from several factors, which leads to a dangerous

Page 3

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE situation. The basic idea is to intervene at any point of this chain, in order to reduce the kinetic energy of all road users who are involved in the accident to a tolerable level. Such an intervention may not only reduce the number of accidents but also the severity of injuries. The initial step for the implementation of the RAP method is the inspection and record of the infrastructure elements of a road network, which relate to the road safety. The record leads to the quantification of the safety that a road section provides to its users by awarding safety scores (Star Rating Scores). The Star Rating Scores express the safety capacity of a road section in a 5-Stars scale. This quantification aims to identifying the most appropriate countermeasures, which will increase the infrastructure’s road safety score. The Safer Roads Investment Plan (SRIP) includes all the countermeasures proved able to provide the greater safety capacity and maximize the benefit over spent cost of the planned investments. Thus, the SRIPs are considered as a valuable tool for the authorities, stakeholders and investors in order to decide for the most cost-effective and efficient road infrastructure investments.

1.3.1 Measuring the road infrastructure safety

The assessment of the road safety requires the Road Safety Inspections of the road network sections and the assignment of a safety score to them. The inspection is conducted by visual observation and record of the road infrastructure elements which are related -directly or not- to road safety and have a proven influence on the likelihood of an accident or its severity. The RAP uses two types of inspection; the drive-through and the video-based inspection. During the first one, the record of the infrastructure’s elements is performed manually, with the help of specialized software, while during the second, a specially equipped vehicle is used, so as the recorded video to be used for a virtual drive-through of the network and an automated identification of the infrastructure’s elements. Following the RSI, the Road Protection Score (RPS) is calculated. The RPS is a unit-less indicator, which depicts the infrastructure’s safety capacity for each road user type and it is calculated for 100m road segments. Road user types are considered the car occupants, the motorcyclists, the bicyclists and the pedestrians, who may be involved in road accidents. For each road user type and for 100m road segmentation the respective RPS is calculated as follows:

RPSn,u = RPS n,u,c = L n,u,c * S n,u,c * OS n,u,c * EFI n,u,c * MT n,u,c cc where “n” is the number of 100m road segment, “u” the type of road user and “c” the crash type that the road user type “u” may be involved in. The following variables are taken into consideration: L: the Likelihood that the “i” crash may be initiated, S: the Severity of the “i” crash, OS: the degree to which risk changes with the Operating Speed for the specific “i” crash type, EFL: the degree to which a person’s risk of being involved in the “i” type of crash is a function of another person’s use of the road (External Flow Influence), MT: the potential that an errant vehicle will cross a median (Median Traversability).

1.3.2 The Star Rating process

The aim of the Star Rating process is the award of the “n” 100m road segments with Stars, depicting the safety offered to each of the “u” road users’ types. The Star Rating system uses the typical international practice of recognising the best performing category as 5-star and the worst as 1-star (5 stars scale), so that a 5-star road means that the probability of a crash occurrence, which may lead to death or serious injury is very low. The Star Rate is determined by assigning each RPS calculated to the Star Rating bands. The thresholds of each band are different for each road user and were set following significant sensitivity testing

Page 4

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE to determine how RPS varies with changes in road infrastructure elements. The assignment procedure leads to the development of a risk-worm chart, which depicts the variation of the RPS score in relation to the position (distance from the beginning) on the road under consideration. The final output of the Star Rating is the Star Rating Maps, in which the “n” road sections are shown with different colour, depending on their Star award (5-star green and 1-star black).

1.3.3 Developing the Safer Road Investment Plans (SRIPs)

The development of the most appropriate SRIP presupposes the assessment of the number of fatalities and serious injuries that could be prevented for each 100m road segment on an annual basis when a set of countermeasures is applied. The number of fatalities is calculated as follows:

F = F n n,u,c u c where “n” is the number of the 100m road segment, “u” the type of road user, “c” the crash type that the road user “u” may be involved in and F the number of fatalities that can be prevented on a time period of 20 years, given that a specific set of countermeasures is applied. The number is related to four main factors: (1) the safety score of the specific road segment, (2) the “u” road users flow, (3) the fatality growth, which indicates the underlying trend in road fatalities and (4) the calibration factor, which inserts the actual number of fatalities that occur in the specific road section. The calculation of this factor presupposes the existence of similar crash data. The assessment of the number of serious injuries that could be prevented for a 100m road segment is a function of the Fn,u,c value and the ratio of the actual number of serious injuries to the actual number of fatalities to the relevant number of fatalities. In case of lack of appropriate data, the competent authorities should estimate this actual number as previously, or the ratio of 10 serious injuries to 1 death is used, which is proposed by McMahon et al. in [19]. The next step in establishing the SRIPs is the identification of the most appropriate countermeasures. Countermeasures are the engineering improvements that the road authorities should take so as to reduce the fatalities and serious injuries rates. Each countermeasure is characterized by its trigger sets and its effectiveness for each of the 100m road segments. Each trigger set describes all the cases in which this certain countermeasure can be used. The effectiveness is calculated according to the number of fatalities and serious injuries that can be prevented in this segment and the RPS of this segment before and after the application of the countermeasure. It is important to mention that in the case that multiple countermeasures act on a certain road segment, the total effectiveness is not the simple sum of each countermeasure’s effectiveness. Instead, a reduction factor should act, which calibrates the total effectiveness. The procedure of selecting the most appropriate countermeasures is the basis for the techno- economic analysis of the investment plan and aims to the calculation of the Benefit-Cost ratio (BCR) for each countermeasure. The economic benefit is considered as the benefit of preventing a death or a serious injury. The calculations are conducted following the assumption that the cost of a human life is 70 times the GDP per capita, the cost of a serious injury is the 25% of the cost of a human life and the ratio of 10 serious injuries for 1 death, if more accurate information is not available. The countermeasure cost includes all the construction costs, the maintenance costs over a 20 year period and/or probable reconstruction costs. All the benefits/costs should reflect the actual local prices, taking into

Page 5

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE account the economic life of each countermeasure and the discount rate. The outcome of this procedure is the BCR calculation for each countermeasure applied to a specific road segment. The SRIP is conducted for a period of 20 years and shows the list of the most cost effective improvements that are able to reduce the crash risk for all road user types. In that way the SRIP enables the road authorities to set the priorities properly when developing infrastructure‘s maintenance and/or rehabilitation plans.

Page 6

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

2 The inspected road network

2.1.1 Coverage and basic characteristics

The inspected road network in Greece is a part of the TEN-T network. It includes 299 sections of total length (road axis) of about3,600km. The following Table presents the roads inspected, along with the dates that the survey took place.

Road Length Date of Type Section / From - To Name (Km) inspection EO-11 D 1. X EO-1 - X VATHI 6.2 2013-10-03 EO-11 D 1. X VATHI - X EO-1 6.91 2013-10-03 EO-11 D 2. X KHALKIS - X VATHI 5 2013-10-03 EO-11 D 2. X VATHI - X KHALKIS 5.6 2013-10-03 EO-12 U 1. EO-A25 - X EO-63 3.2 2013-11-11 EO-15 U 1. X KOROMILIA - X EO-2 19 2013-09-25 EO-18 U 1. PREVEZA - X ARTA 9.1 2013-09-23 EO-18 U 2. X ARTA - X VRACHOS 22.3 2013-09-23 EO-18 U 3. X VRACHOS - X PARGA 18.6 2013-09-23 EO-18 U 4. X PARGA - X PERDIKA 14.8 2013-09-23 EO-18 U 5. X PERDIKA - X SIVOTA 11.5 2013-09-23 EO-18 U 6. X SIVOTA - X EO-A2 10.7 2013-09-23 EO-2 U 1. X EO-15 - BORDER 12.1 2013-09-25 EO-20 U 1. X EO-22 - X ZAGORI 14.3 2013-09-24 EO-20 U 2. X ZAGORI - X EO-6 12.1 2013-09-24 EO-20 U 3. X EO-6 - X PERIFERIAKI IOANNINON 2.1 2013-09-24 EO-22 U 1. BORDER - X EO-20 24.1 2013-09-24 EO-27 U 1. X EO-48 - X AMFISSA 6.2 2013-09-19 EO-27 U 2. X AMFISSA - X GRAVIA 30.3 2013-09-19 EO-27 U 3. X GRAVIA - X EO-3 5.9 2013-09-19 EO-3 U 1. PTOLEMAIDA - X EO-3 16.2 2013-09-24 EO-3 U 1. THIVA - X VILIA 21.5 2013-10-21 EO-3 U 1. X EO-27 - X EO-A1 20.6 2013-09-19 EO-3 U 1. X EO-30 - DOMOKOS 6.8 2013-09-25 EO-3 U 2. DOMOKOS - X EO-38 36.3 2013-09-25 EO-3 U 2. X EO-3 - X VEVI 17.6 2013-09-24 EO-3 U 2. X VILIA - X EO-8A 25 2013-10-21 EO-3 U 3. X EO-38 - X EO-A1 2.5 2013-09-25 EO-3 U 3. X VEVI - FLORINA 15.7 2013-09-24 EO-3 U 4. FLORINA - BORDER 11 2013-09-24 EO-30 U 1. X 6 - X TRIKALA 2.4 2013-09-25

Page 7

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

EO-30 U 2. X TRIKALA - X KARDITSA NORTH 20.5 2013-09-25 EO-30 U 3. X KARDITSA NORTH - X KARDITSA SOUTH 4.3 2013-09-25 EO-30 U 4. X KARDITSA SOUTH - X LARISSA 6.7 2013-09-25 EO-30 U 5. X LARISSA - X FARSALA 27.8 2013-09-25 EO-33 U 1. OVRYA - X ERIMANTHIA 25.7 2013-10-16 EO-33 U 2. X ERIMANTHIA - AG.TRIADA 18.4 2013-10-16 EO-33 U 3. AG.TRIADA - LAMPEIA 26.1 2013-10-16 EO-33 U 4. LAMPEIA - X DAFNI 25.7 2013-10-16 EO-33 U 5. X DAFNI - X EO-74 29.5 2013-10-16 EO-38 U 1. X 3 - KRAVARITOU 0.9 2013-09-19 EO-38 U 2. KRAVARITOU - LAMIA CITY LIMIT 3.8 2013-09-19 EO-38 U 3. LAMIA CITY LIMIT - LEIANOKLADI 7.5 2013-09-19 EO-38 U 4. LEIANOKLADI - MAKRAKOMI 17.1 2013-09-19 EO-38 U 5. MAKRAKOMI - X KARPENISSI 40.8 2013-09-19 EO-38 U 7. KARPENISSI - X VINIANI 28.9 2013-09-19 EO-38 U 8. X VINIANI - EPISKOPI BRIDGE 25.5 2013-09-19 EO-38 U 9. EPISKOPI BRIDGE - X PIRGI 44 2013-09-19 EO-39 U 1. X EO-A7 - ALEPOCHORI 18.5 2013-10-16 EO-39 U 2. ALEPOCHORI - SPARTI 35.8 2013-10-16 EO-42 U 1. AMFILOCHIA - X DRIMOS 19.6 2013-09-23 EO-42 U 2. X DRIMOS - VONITSA 12.2 2013-09-23 EO-42 U 3. VONITSA - X EO-18 6.4 2013-09-23 EO-44 U 1. KARISTOS - X MARMARI 10.6 2013-09-18 EO-44 U 2. X MARMARI - STYRA 19.4 2013-09-18 EO-44 U 3. STYRA - X STIRON-TSAKEON 13 2013-09-18 EO-44 U 4. X STIRON-TSAKEON - LEPOURA 23.9 2013-09-18 EO-44 U 5. LEPOURA - ALIVERI 6.3 2013-09-18 EO-44 U 6. ALIVERI - ERETRIA 27.1 2013-09-18 EO-44 U 7. ERETRIA - KHALKIS 18.7 2013-09-18 EO-48 U 1. X EO-5 - X NAFPAKTOS 4.4 2013-09-19 EO-48 U 2. X NAFPAKTOS - X NAFPAKTOS 3.9 2013-09-19 EO-48 U 3. X NAFPAKTOS - X AG.SPIRIDON 33.2 2013-09-19 EO-48 U 4. X AG.SPIRIDON - X ERATINI 15.8 2013-09-19 EO-48 U 5. X ERATINI - X GALAXIDI 19.8 2013-09-19 EO-48 U 6. X GALAXIDI - ITEA 16.2 2013-09-19 EO-48 U 7. ITEA - X EO-27 5.3 2013-09-19 EO-5 U 1. X EO-8A - X EO-48 5.4 2013-09-23 EO-5 U 10. X IOANNINA - X EO-20 10.5 2013-09-24 EO-5 U 2. X EO-48 - X MESOLONGION 31.2 2013-09-23 EO-5 U 3. X MESOLONGION - A5 12.7 2013-09-23 EO-5 U 4. X EO-A5 - X EO-42 19.4 2013-09-23

Page 8

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

EO-5 U 5. X EO-42 - X IONIA ODOS SOUTH 33.6 2013-09-24 EO-5 U 6. X IONIA ODOS SOUTH - IONIA ODOS NORTH 25.7 2013-09-24 EO-5 U 7. X IONIA ODOS NORTH - CHANI TEREVOU 27.9 2013-09-24 EO-5 U 8. CHANI TEREVOU - X EO-A2 22.1 2013-09-24 EO-5 D 9. X EO-A2 - X IOANNINA 2.7 2013-09-23 EO-5 D 9. X IOANNINA - X EO-A2 2.8 2013-09-24 EO-51 U 1. X ORESTIADA NORTH - X DIDIMOTICHO 24.4 2013-11-18 SOUTH EO-51 U 2. X DIDIMOTICHO SOUTH - MANDRA 14 2013-11-18 EO-51 U 3. MANDRA - X A2 39.5 2013-11-18 EO-6 U 1. X EO-A1 - X EO-1 3 2013-11-18 EO-6 D 1. X EO-A1 - X PERIFERIAKI VOLOU 9.2 2013-11-09 EO-6 U 1. X EO-A2 - X EO-15 33.5 2013-09-25 EO-6 D 1. X PERIFERIAKI VOLOU - X EO-A1 9.2 2013-11-09 EO-6 D 2. VOLOS - X PERIFERIAKI VOLOU 2.1 2013-11-09 EO-6 U 2. X EO-1 - X LARISSA 7.6 2013-11-18 EO-6 U 2. X EO-15 - X KASTRAKI 8.6 2013-09-25 EO-6 D 2. X PERIFERIAKI VOLOU - VOLOS 2.1 2013-11-09 EO-6 U 3. X KASTRAKI - X EO-30 24 2013-09-25 EO-6 U 3. X LARISSA - X TYRNAVOS 16.1 2013-11-18 EO-6 D 4. X EO-30 - X TYRNAVOS 38.3 2013-11-19 EO-6 D 4. X TYRNAVOS - X EO-30 38.4 2013-11-18 EO-6 D 5. X EO-30 - X TRIKALA 1.1 2013-11-18 EO-6 D 5. X TRIKALA - X EO-30 1.7 2013-11-19 EO-63 D 1. X EO-12 - X EO-A25 14.1 2013-11-11 EO-63 D 1. X EO-A25 - X EO-12 14.8 2013-11-17 EO-74 U 1. X EO-33 - LEVIDI 8.8 2013-10-16 EO-74 U 2. LEVIDI - X TRIPOLIS 13.7 2013-10-16 EO-74 U 3. X TRIPOLIS - TRIPOLIS 8.4 2013-10-16 EO-77 U 1. KHALKIS - PSACHNA 12.1 2013-09-18 EO-77 U 2. PSACHNA - PROKOPI 33.3 2013-09-18 EO-77 U 3. PROKOPI - X LIMNI 14.8 2013-09-18 EO-77 U 4. X LIMNI - AGIA ANNA 6.7 2013-09-18 EO-77 U 5. AGIA ANNA - X LOUTRA EDIPSOU 7.3 2013-09-18 EO-77 U 6. X LOUTRA EDIPSOU - VASILIKA 13.1 2013-09-18 EO-77 U 7. VASILIKA - ARTEMISIO 22 2013-09-18 EO-77 U 8. ARTEMISIO - ISTIAIA 11.2 2013-09-18 1. X ATTIKI ODOS - X KOROPIOU- EO-89 D 2.71 2013-09-17 MARKOPOULOU AVE 1. X KOROPIOU-MARKOPOULOU AVE - X ATTIKI EO-89 D 1.8 2013-09-17 ODOS 2. X KOROPIOU-MARKOPOULOU AVE - X EO-89 D 7.79 2013-09-17 KOUVARAS

Page 9

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

2. X KOUVARAS - X KOROPIOU-MARKOPOULOU EO-89 D 8 2013-09-17 AVE EO-89 D 3. X KOUVARAS - X THORIKO 16.5 2013-09-17 EO-89 D 3. X THORIKO - KOUVARAS 16.2 2013-09-17 EO-89 D 4. X LAVRIO - X THORIKO 1.5 2013-09-17 EO-89 D 4. X THORIKO - LAVRIO 1.4 2013-09-17 EO-8A U 3. X EO-A7 - X KIATO 21.9 2013-09-23 EO-8A U 4. X KIATO - X DERVENI 34.5 2013-09-23 EO-8A U 5. X DERVENI - X AIGIO 29.4 2013-09-23 EO-8A U 6. X AIGIO - X EO-A5 33.3 2013-09-23 EO-9 U 1. KALO NERO - ZACHARO 21 2013-10-16 EO-9 U 2. ZACHARO -PYRGOS 32.7 2013-10-16 EO-9 U 3. PYRGOS - X AMALIADA 16.9 2013-10-16 EO-9 U 4. X AMALIADA - X ANDRAVIDA 15.6 2013-10-16 EO-9 U 5. X ANDRAVIDA - X VARDA 17.6 2013-10-16 EO-9 U 6. X VARDA - X KATO ACHAIA 21.1 2013-10-16 EO-9 U 7. X KATO ACHAIA - X EO-A5 14.8 2013-10-16 EO-90 U 1. KISSAMOS - X KOLYMVARI 16.8 2013-09-27 EO-90 U 10. X MPALI - X FODELE-ACHLADA 21.1 2013-09-27 EO-90 U 11. X FODELE-ACHLADA - X GAZI 15.2 2013-09-27 EO-90 D 12. X GAZI - X MOIRES 6.1 2013-09-27 EO-90 D 12. X MOIRES - X GAZI 6.1 2013-09-27 EO-90 D 13. X GOURNES - X MOIRES 18.4 2013-09-27 EO-90 D 13. X MOIRES - X GOURNES 14.8 2013-09-27 EO-90 U 14. X GOURNES - X MALIA 16.2 2013-09-27 EO-90 U 15. X MALIA - X AG.NIKOLAOS 14.2 2013-09-27 EO-90 U 16. X AG.NIKOLAOS - X IERAPETRA 20.9 2013-09-27 EO-90 U 17. X IERAPETRA - EXO MOULIANA 30.7 2013-09-27 EO-90 U 18. EXO MOULIANA - SITIA 14.8 2013-09-27 EO-90 U 2. X KOLYMVARI - X PLATANIAS 10.3 2013-09-27 EO-90 U 3. X PLATANIAS - X CHANIA-OMALOS 9.6 2013-09-27 EO-90 U 4. X CHANIA-OMALOS - X MOURNIES 2.2 2013-09-27 EO-90 U 5. X MOURNIES - X SOUDA 4.7 2013-09-27 EO-90 U 6. X SOUDA - KOURNAS 34.9 2013-09-27 EO-90 U 7. KOURNAS - X RETHYMNO-ATSIPOPOULO 13.9 2013-09-27 EO-90 U 8. X RETHYMNO-ATSIPOPOULO - X PEO 14 2013-09-27 RETHYMNO-HERAKLION EO-90 U 9. X PEO RETHYMNO-HERAKLION - X MPALI 20.31 2013-09-27 EO-97 U 1. AGIOI DEKA - AGIA VARVARA 13.6 2013-09-27 EO-97 U 2. AGIA VARVARA - X GOURNES 21.9 2013-09-27 EO-97 U 3. X GOURNES - X EO-90 2.9 2013-09-27 EO-9A U 1. X EO-A7 - KALO NERO 30.8 2013-10-16

Page 10

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

EO-A1 D 1. SEF - X EO-A6 15.1 2013-11-09 EO-A1 D 1. X EO-A6 - SEF 15.61 2013-11-19 EO-A1 D 10. X EO-3 - X RACHES 29.6 2013-11-09 EO-A1 D 10. X RACHES - X EO-3 30.21 2013-12-05 EO-A1 D 11. X ALMYROS - X RACHES 43.92 2013-12-05 EO-A1 D 11. X RACHES - X ALMYROS 47.1 2013-11-09 EO-A1 D 12. X ALMYROS - X EO-6 24 2013-11-09 EO-A1 D 12. X EO-6 - X ALMYROS 25.21 2013-12-05 EO-A1 D 13. X EO-6 - X LARISSA 38.2 2013-11-09 EO-A1 D 13. X LARISSA - X EO-6 37.91 2013-12-05 EO-A1 D 14. X EVAGGELISMOS - X LARISSA 24.5 2013-12-05 EO-A1 D 14. X LARISSA - X EVAGGELISMOS 4.4 2013-11-09 EO-A1 D 15. X EVAGGELISMOS - X LEPTOKARYA 32.3 2013-11-09 EO-A1 D 15. X LEPTOKARYA - X EVAGGELISMOS 33.3 2013-12-05 EO-A1 D 16. X KATERINI - X LEPTOKARYA 23.71 2013-12-05 EO-A1 D 16. X LEPTOKARYA - X KATERINI 23.9 2013-11-09 EO-A1 U 18. X EO-A2 - X KILKIS 43.7 2013-11-10 EO-A1 D 19. BORDER - X KILKIS 16.2 2013-11-10 EO-A1 D 19. X KILKIS - BORDER 15.5 2013-11-10 EO-A1 D 2. X AG.STEFANOS - X EO-A6 12.1 2013-11-19 EO-A1 D 2. X EO-A6 - X AGIOS STEFANOS 12.2 2013-11-09 EO-A1 D 3. X AGIOS STEFANOS - X OINOFYTA-AVLONAS 27.8 2013-11-09 EO-A1 D 3. X OINOFYTA-AVLONAS - X AG.STEFANOS 27.62 2013-11-19 EO-A1 D 4. X OINOFYTA-AVLONAS - X THIVA 33.7 2013-11-09 EO-A1 D 4. X THIVA - X OINOFYTA-AVLONAS 34 2013-11-19 EO-A1 D 5. X KASTRO - X THIVA 24.61 2013-12-05 EO-A1 D 5. X THIVA - X KASTRO 25.1 2013-11-09 EO-A1 D 6. X KASTRO - X MALESINA 14.31 2013-11-09 EO-A1 D 6. X MALESINA - X KASTRO 14 2013-12-05 EO-A1 D 7. X DELFI-ATALANTI - X MALESINA 16.4 2013-12-05 EO-A1 D 7. X MALESINA - X DELFI-ATALANTI 15.8 2013-11-09 EO-A1 D 8. X DELFI-ATALANTI - X KAMENA VOURLA 31.6 2013-11-09 EO-A1 D 8. X KAMENA VOURLA - DELFI-ATALANTI 34.32 2013-12-05 EO-A1 D 9. X EO-3 - X KAMENA VOURLA 29.81 2013-12-05 EO-A1 D 9. X KAMENA VOURLA - X EO-3 34.7 2013-11-09 EO-A2 D 1. X IGOUMENITSA - X PARAMYTHIA 21 2013-09-23 EO-A2 D 1. X PARAMYTHIA - X IGOUMENITSA 21 2013-09-24 EO-A2 D 10. X EO-A27 - X KOZANI SOUTH 22 2013-09-25 EO-A2 D 10. X KOZANI SOUTH - X EO-A27 22 2013-09-24 EO-A2 D 11. X EO-A27 - X POLIMILOS 22.61 2013-11-10 EO-A2 D 11. X POLIMILOS - X EO-A27 22.61 2013-11-10

Page 11

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

EO-A2 D 12. X POLIMILOS - X VEROIA 26 2013-11-10 EO-A2 D 12. X VEROIA - X POLIMILOS 25.61 2013-11-10 EO-A2 D 13. X ALEXANDRIA - X VEROIA 22.5 2013-11-10 EO-A2 D 13. X VEROIA - X ALEXANDRIA 23 2013-11-10 EO-A2 D 14. X ALEXANDRIA - X EO-A1 13 2013-11-10 EO-A2 D 14. X EO-A1 - X ALEXANDRIA 12.4 2013-11-10 EO-A2 D 15. X EO-1 - X EO-A1 13.21 2013-11-18 EO-A2 D 15. X EO-A1 - X EO-1 11.6 2013-11-10 EO-A2 D 16. X EO-1 - X THESSALONIKI KALOCHORI 10.81 2013-11-10 EO-A2 D 16. X THESSALONIKI KALOCHORI - X EO-1 9.9 2013-11-18 17. X THESSALONIKI KALOCHORI - X EO-A2 D 13 2013-11-11 THESSALONIKI TITAN 17. X THESSALONIKI TITAN - X THESSALONIKI EO-A2 D 13.5 2013-11-18 KALOCHORI EO-A2 D 18. X EO-A25 - X THESSALONIKI TITAN 7.3 2013-11-18 EO-A2 D 18. X THESSALONIKI TITAN - X EO-A25 7.4 2013-11-11 EO-A2 D 19. X ASPROVALTA - X EO-A25 59.82 2013-11-18 EO-A2 D 19. X EO-A25 - X ASPROVALTA 59.82 2013-11-17 EO-A2 D 2. X DODONI - X PARAMYTHIA 37.71 2013-09-24 EO-A2 D 2. X PARAMYTHIA - X DODONI 38.11 2013-09-23 EO-A2 D 20. X ASPROVALTA - X EO-59 16.81 2013-11-17 EO-A2 D 20. X EO-59 - X ASPROVALTA 16.81 2013-11-18 EO-A2 D 21. X AG.ANDREAS - X EO-59 44.3 2013-11-18 EO-A2 D 21. X EO-59 - X AG.ANDREAS 44.3 2013-11-17 EO-A2 D 22. X AG.ANDREAS - X EO-12 11.4 2013-11-17 EO-A2 D 22. X EO-12 - X AG.ANDREAS 11.4 2013-11-18 EO-A2 D 23. X EO-12 - X EO-2 10.4 2013-11-17 EO-A2 D 23. X EO-2 - X EO-12 10.4 2013-11-18 EO-A2 D 24. X EO-2 - X XANTHI WEST 36.71 2013-11-17 EO-A2 D 24. X XANTHI WEST - X EO-2 36.71 2013-11-18 EO-A2 D 25. X KOMOTINI EAST - X XANTHI WEST 51.61 2013-11-18 EO-A2 D 25. X XANTHI WEST - X KOMOTINI EAST 51.61 2013-11-17 EO-A2 D 26. X KOMOTINI EAST - X SAPES 24 2013-11-17 EO-A2 D 26. X SAPES - X KOMOTINI EAST 24 2013-11-18 EO-A2 D 27. X ALEXANDROUPOLIS - X SAPES 26 2013-11-18 EO-A2 D 27. X SAPES - X ALEXANDROUPOLIS 26 2013-11-17 EO-A2 D 28. X ALEXANDROUPOLIS - X EO-51 33 2013-11-17 EO-A2 D 28. X EO-51 - X ALEXANDROUPOLIS 33 2013-11-18 EO-A2 D 29. BORDER - X EO-51 7 2013-11-17 EO-A2 D 29. X EO-51 - BORDER 7 2013-11-17 EO-A2 D 3. X DODONI - X EO-5 8.5 2013-09-23 EO-A2 D 3. X EO-5 - X DODONI 8.4 2013-09-24

Page 12

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

EO-A2 D 4. X EO-5 - X ZAGORI 22 2013-09-24 EO-A2 D 4. X ZAGORI - X EO-5 22 2013-09-25 EO-A2 D 5. X METSOVO - X ZAGORI 16 2013-09-25 EO-A2 D 5. X ZAGORI - X METSOVO 16 2013-09-24 EO-A2 D 6. X METEORA - X METSOVO 14 2013-09-25 EO-A2 D 6. X METSOVO - X METEORA 14 2013-09-24 EO-A2 D 7. X GREVENA SOUTH - X METEORA 34 2013-09-25 EO-A2 D 7. X METEORA - X GREVENA SOUTH 34 2013-09-24 EO-A2 D 8. X EO-A29 - X GREVENA SOUTH 22 2013-09-25 EO-A2 D 8. X GREVENA SOUTH - X EO-A29 22 2013-09-24 EO-A2 D 9. X EO-A29 - X KOZANI SOUTH 13 2013-09-24 EO-A2 D 9. X KOZANI SOUTH - X EO-A29 13 2013-09-25 EO-A25 D 1. X EO-A2 - X KILKIS 4.5 2013-11-11 EO-A25 D 1. X KILKIS - X EO-A2 15.9 2013-11-17 EO-A25 D 2. X KILKIS - X XILOPOLI 19.7 2013-11-11 EO-A25 D 2. X XILOPOLI - X KILKIS 8.4 2013-11-17 EO-A25 D 3. EO-12 - X XILOPOLI 17.5 2013-11-17 EO-A25 D 3. X XILOPOLI - EO-12 40.6 2013-11-11 EO-A25 D 4. BORDER - X EO-63 12.1 2013-11-17 EO-A25 D 4. X EO-63 - BORDER 11.3 2013-11-11 EO-A27 D 1. X EO-A2 - X PTOLEMAIDA 21.3 2013-09-24 EO-A27 D 1. X PTOLEMAIDA - X EO-A2 20.8 2013-09-25 EO-A29 D 1. X EO-A2 - X GERMAS 25 2013-09-25 EO-A29 D 1. X GERMAS - X EO-A2 25.5 2013-09-25 EO-A29 D 2. X GERMAS - X KOROMILIA 24.6 2013-09-25 EO-A29 D 2. X KOROMILIA - X GERMAS 23.8 2013-09-25 EO-A5 D 1. RIGANI - X EO-5 SOUTH 32.62 2013-09-23 EO-A5 D 1. X EO-5 SOUTH - RIGANI 32.62 2013-09-23 EO-A5 D 1. X EO-8A - X EO-9 18.8 2013-10-16 EO-A5 D 1. X EO-9 - X EO-8A 17.8 2013-10-16 EO-A5 D 2. RIGANI - X EO-5 NORTH 32.33 2013-09-23 EO-A5 D 2. X EO-5 NORTH - RIGANI 32.33 2013-09-23 EO-A6 D 1. X EO-A65 - X EO-A8 18 2013-09-30 EO-A6 D 1. X EO-A8 - X EO-A65 18 2013-09-30 EO-A6 D 2. X EO-A1 - X EO-A65 7 2013-09-30 EO-A6 D 2. X EO-A65 - X EO-A1 7 2013-09-30 EO-A6 D 3. X EO-A1 - X EO-A642 8 2013-09-30 EO-A6 D 3. X EO-A642 - X EO-A1 8 2013-09-30 EO-A6 D 4. X EO-A64 - X EO-A642 6 2013-09-17 EO-A6 D 4. X EO-A642 - X EO-A64 6 2013-09-30 EO-A6 D 5. X EO-A62 - X EO-A64 10 2013-09-17

Page 13

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

EO-A6 D 5. X EO-A64 - X EO-A62 10 2013-09-17 EO-A7 D 1. X 8A - X MYKINES 21.9 2013-09-30 EO-A7 D 1. X MYKINES - X 8A 73.8 2013-09-30 EO-A7 D 2. X ARGOS - X MYKINES 16.8 2013-09-30 EO-A7 D 2. X MYKINES - X ARGOS 16.8 2013-09-30 EO-A7 D 3. X ANCIENT OLYMPIA - X ARGOS 23 2013-09-30 EO-A7 D 3. X ARGOS - X ANCIENT OLYMPIA 23 2013-09-30 EO-A7 D 4. X ANCIENT OLYMPIA - X TRIPOLI NORTH 10.1 2013-09-30 EO-A7 D 4. X TRIPOLI NORTH - X ANCIENT OLYMPIA 10.1 2013-09-30 EO-A7 D 5. X SPARTI - X TRIPOLI NORTH 2.3 2013-09-30 EO-A7 D 5. X TRIPOLI NORTH - X SPARTI 2.3 2013-09-30 EO-A7 D 6. X MEGALOPOLI - X SPARTI 31.81 2013-09-30 EO-A7 D 6. X SPARTI - X MEGALOPOLI 31.9 2013-09-30 EO-A7 D 7. X E55 - X MEGALOPOLI 18.21 2013-09-30 EO-A7 D 7. X MEGALOPOLI - X E55 17.6 2013-09-30 EO-A7 D 8. X E55 - X PILOS 21.1 2013-09-30 EO-A7 D 8. X PILOS - X E55 20.7 2013-09-30 EO-A8 D 1. X AGIOI THEODOROI - X EO-A6 39.2 2013-09-30 EO-A8 D 1. X EO-A6 - X AGIOI THEODOROI 38.5 2013-09-23 EO-A8 D 2. X AGIOI THEODOROI - X EO-A7 19.1 2013-09-23 EO-A8 D 2. X EO-A7 - X AGIOI THEODOROI 18.8 2013-09-30

Table 1: The inspected road network in Greece

The largest portion of the road is a single carriageway (undivided).The lane width is over 3.25 m, in the length of 85% of the total of 4,738 km inspected (including undivided sections and both directions of the divided sections). Concerning physical separation between opposing traffic flows and centreline separating traffic are present in 39% of the surveyed network, and concrete safety barrier in 39% as well, while metal median barrier separating traffic lanes by directions is placed in 16%. Paved shoulders are mostly (~47%)1.0 to 2.4 m wide (medium) on the passenger’s side. As for the pedestrian facilities are concerned, they do not exist at the 99% of the inspected road, i.e. there is a very small number of signalized pedestrian crossings, with or without traffic lights, refuges and grade separated facilities. The same case is for the bicycles as well. Regarding hazardous objects at the side of a driver or passenger in the front seat, such objects are recorded in about 40% of surveyed network. These objects include cliffs, deep canals, steep slopes, trees and poles of a diameter greater than 10cm, etc.

Page 14

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

Figure 3 – SENSoR surveyed road network in Greece

2.1.2 Details of the recorded road attributes

On the basis of the analysis of the inspection’s data the following Table presents details of the inspected network.

Vehicle flow (AADT) Km %

1000 – 5000 783.1 17

5000 – 10000 2,139.6 15

10000 – 15000 898.3 19

15000 – 20000 248.2 5

20000 – 40000 407.6 9

40000 – 60000 230.5 5

60000 – 80000 30.8 1 Area type Km %

Rural / open area 4,520.7 97

Urban / rural town or village 217.4 5 Bicycle observed flow Km %

None 4,711.0 99

1 bicycle observed 2.9 0

2 to 3 bicycles observed 0.6 0

8+ bicycles observed 264.3 5 Bicycle peak hour flow Km %

None 4,738.1 100 Bicycle star rating policy target Km %

Page 15

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

Not applicable 4,738.1 100 Vehicle occupant star rating policy target Km %

Not applicable 4,738.1 100 Carriageway label Km %

Carriageway A of a divided carriageway road 1,472.6 31

Carriageway B of a divided carriageway road 1,250.7 26

Undivided road 2,014.8 43 Centreline rumble strips Km %

Not present 4,501.4 95

Present 236.7 5 Curvature Km %

Straight or gently curving 3,399.9 72

Moderate 764.9 16

Sharp 350.4 7

Very sharp 222.9 5 Delineation Km %

Adequate 3,348.5 71

Poor 1,389.6 29 Differential speed limits Km %

Not present 3,006.9 63

Present 1,731.2 37 Facilities for bicycles Km %

None 4,738.0 100

Shared use path 0.1 0 Facilities for motorised two wheelers Km %

Exclusive two way motorcycle path with barrier 0.3 0

None 4,737.8 100 Grade Km %

>= 0% to <7.5% 4,501.2 95

>= 7.5% to <10% 236.9 5 Intersection type Points %

Merge lane 851 2

Roundabout 6 0

3-leg (unsignalised) with protected turn lane 186 0

3-leg (unsignalised) with no protected turn lane 688 1

3-leg (signalised) with protected turn lane 41 0

3-leg (signalised) with no protected turn lane 15 0

Page 16

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

4-leg (unsignalised) with protected turn lane 72 0

4-leg (unsignalised) with no protected turn lane 122 0

4-leg (signalised) with protected turn lane 73 0

4-leg (signalised) with no protected turn lane 15 0

None 45302 96

Railway Crossing - passive (signs only) 1 0

Railway Crossing - active (flashing lights / boom gates) 3 0

Median crossing point - formal 2 0

Mini roundabout 4 0 Intersecting road volume Points %

>=15,000 vehicles 10 0

10,000 to 15,000 vehicles 25 0

5.000 to 10.000 vehicles 32 0

1.000 to 5.000 vehicles 241 2

100 to 1,000 vehicles 673 1

1 to 100 vehicles 1098 2

None 45302 96 Intersection channelisation Points %

Not present 47069 99

Present 312 1 Intersection quality Points %

Adequate 34705 73

Poor 751 2

Not applicable 11925 25 Land use - driver-side Km %

Undeveloped areas 4,001.7 84

Farming and agricultural 379.6 8

Residential 141.8 3

Commercial 161.1 3

Educational 26.3 1

Industrial and manufacturing 27.6 1 Land use - passenger-side Km %

Undeveloped areas 3,309.8 70

Farming and agricultural 949.2 20

Residential 172.8 4

Commercial 215.8 5

Page 17

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

Educational 25.3 1

Industrial and manufacturing 65.2 1 Lane width Km %

Wide (>= 3.25m) 4,041.16 85

Medium (>= 2.75m to < 3.25m) 499.7 11

Narrow (>= 0m to < 2.75m) 196.8 4 Median type Km %

Safety barrier - metal 777.3 16

Safety barrier - concrete 1,859.2 39

Physical median width >= 20.0m 8.2 0

Physical median width >= 10.0m to < 20.0m 5.8 0

Physical median width >= 5.0m to < 10.0m 2.6 0

Physical median width >= 1.0m to < 5.0m 105.7 2

Physical median width >= 0m to < 1.0m 20.4 0

Continuous central turning lane 0.7 0

Flexipost 0.6 0

Central hatching (>1m) 81.7 2

Centre line 1,867.6 39

Wide centre line (0.3m to 1m) 8.3 0 Motorcycle % Km %

1% - 5% 4,738.1 100 Motorcycle observed flow Km %

None 4,677.2 99

1 motorcycle observed 34.5 1

2 to 3 motorcycles observed 2.9 0

8+ motorcycles observed 23.5 0 Motorcycle star rating policy target Km %

Not applicable 4,738.1 100 Number of lanes Km %

One 1,833.3 39

Two 2,427.3 51

Three 344.5 7

Four or more 39.1 1

Two and one 93.0 2

Three and two 0.9 0 Operating speed (85th percentile) Km %

Page 18

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

<30km/h 4.0 0

40km/h 0.2 0

50km/h 45.5 1

55km/h 54.6 1

60km/h 6.4 0

65km/h 0.2 0

70km/h 18.4 0

75km/h 188.0 4

80km/h 295.6 6

85km/h 195.0 4

90km/h 430.0 9

95km/h 202.4 4

100km/h 304.6 6

105km/h 471.7 10

110km/h 379.1 8

115km/h 217.1 5

120km/h 546.0 12

125km/h 475.0 10

130km/h 904.3 19 Operating speed (mean) Km %

<30km/h 2.8 0

35km/h 45.4 1

40km/h 56.5 1

45km/h 1.0 0

50km/h 209.8 4

55km/h 79.5 2

60km/h 254.8 5

65km/h 115.8 2

70km/h 375.9 8

75km/h 397.2 8

80km/h 362.0 8

85km/h 249.6 5

90km/h 477.2 10

95km/h 593.3 13

100km/h 690.2 15

Page 19

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

105km/h 383.5 8

110km/h 443.6 9 Paved shoulder - driver-side Km %

Wide (>= 2.4m) 83.0 2

Medium (>= 1.0m to < 2.4m) 625.5 13

Narrow (>= 0m to < 1.0m) 3,526.9 74

None 502.7 11 Paved shoulder - passenger-side Km %

Wide (>= 2.4m) 657.1 14

Medium (>= 1.0m to < 2.4m) 2,228.6 47

Narrow (>= 0m to < 1.0m) 1,386.8 29

None 465.6 10 Pedestrian crossing facilities - inspected road Points % Grade separated facility 20 0

Signalised with refuge 35 0

Signalised without refuge 26 0

Unsignalised marked crossing with refuge 9 0

Unsignalised marked crossing without a refuge 61 0

Refuge only 1 0

No facility 47229 100 Pedestrian crossing facilities - intersecting road Points % Signalised with refuge 27 0

Signalised without refuge 14 0

Unsignalised marked crossing with refuge 6 0

Unsignalised marked crossing without a refuge 1 0

Refuge only 6 0

No facility 47327 100 Pedestrian crossing quality Points %

Adequate 47274 100

Poor 107 0 Pedestrian fencing Km %

Not present 4,736.5 100

Present 1.6 0 Pedestrian observed flow across the road Km %

None 4,711.1 99

1 pedestrian crossing observed 2.1 0

Page 20

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

2 to 3 pedestrians crossing observed 1.0 0

4 to 5 pedestrians crossing observed 0.4 0

8+ pedestrians crossing observed 23.5 0 Pedestrian observed flow along the road driver-side Km %

None 4,693.1 99

1 pedestrian along driver-side observed 11.6 0

2 to 3 pedestrians along driver-side observed 7.5 0

4 to 5 pedestrians along driver-side observed 0.9 0

6 to 7 pedestrians along driver-side observed 0.3 0

8+ pedestrians along driver-side observed 24.7 1 Pedestrian observed flow along the road passenger-side Km %

None 4,691.1 99

1 pedestrian along passenger-side observed 15.3 0

2 to 3 pedestrians along passenger-side observed 5.6 0

4 to 5 pedestrians along passenger-side observed 1.6 0

6 to 7 pedestrians along passenger-side observed 0.5 0

8+ pedestrians along passenger-side observed 24.0 1 Pedestrian peak hour flow across the road Km %

0 2,783.0 59

1 to 5 1,955.1 41 Pedestrian peak hour flow along the road driver-side Km %

0 2,783.0 59

1 to 5 1,955.1 41 Pedestrian peak hour flow along the road passenger-side Km %

0 2,781.0 59

1 to 5 1,957.1 41 Pedestrian star rating policy target Km %

Not applicable 4,738.1 100 Property access points Km %

Commercial Access 1+ 232.0 5

Residential Access 3+ 35.3 1

Residential Access 1 or 2 108.1 2

None 4,362.7 92 Quality of curve Km %

Adequate 851.6 18

Poor 487.0 10

Page 21

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

Not applicable 3,399.5 72 Road condition Km %

Good 2,662.6 56

Medium 1,234.8 26

Poor 840.7 18 Roads that cars can read Km %

Does not meet specification 4,738.1 100 Roadside severity - driver-side distance Km %

0 to <1m 2,833.3 60

1 to <5m 1,789.0 38

5 to <10m 72.6 2

>= 10m 43.2 1 Roadside severity - driver-side object Km %

Safety barrier - metal 1,233.0 26

Safety barrier - concrete 1,851.5 39

Aggressive vertical face 212.0 4

Upwards slope - rollover gradient 47.4 1

Upwards slope –no rollover gradient 45.6 1

Deep drainage ditch 35.5 1

Downwards slope 83.4 2

Cliff 87.9 2

Tree >=10cm dia. 343.3 7

Sign, post or pole >= 10cm dia. 368.6 8

Non-frangible structure/bridge or building 101.1 2

Frangible structure or building 58.1 1

Unprotected safety barrier end 248.7 5

Large boulders >=20cm high 8.8 0

None 23.2 0 Roadside severity - passenger-side distance Km %

0 to <1m 529.7 11

1 to <5m 3,814.8 81

5 to <10m 334.0 7

>=10m 59.6 1 Roadside severity - passenger-side object Km % Safety barrier - metal 2,451.2 52

Safety barrier - concrete 216.1 5

Page 22

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

Safety barrier - wire rope 0.3 0

Aggressive vertical face 244.3 5

Upwards slope - rollover gradient 183.3 4

Upwards slope –no rollover gradient 57.7 1

Deep drainage ditch 63.8 1

Downwards slope 112.5 2

Cliff 87.4 2

Tree >= 10cm dia. 332.2 7

Sign, post or pole >=10cm dia. 304.1 6

Non-frangible structure/bridge or building 205.5 4

Frangible structure or building 86.3 2

Unprotected safety barrier end 362.0 8

Large boulders >= 20cm high 9.5 0

None 21.9 0 Roadworks Km %

No road works 4,738.0 100

Major road works in progress 0.1 0 School zone crossing supervisor Points %

Not applicable (no school at the location) 47381 100 School zone warning Points %

Not applicable (no school at the location) 47381 100 Service road Km %

Not present 3,923.8 83

Present 814.3 17 Shoulder rumble strips Km %

Not present 4,699.5 99

Present 38.6 1 Sidewalk - driver-side Km %

Physical barrier 4.7 0

Non-physical separation >= 3.0m 1.8 0

Non-physical separation 1.0m to <3.0m 16.1 0

Non-physical separation 0m to <1.0m 74.4 2

None 4,571.0 96

Informal path >= 1.0m 11.5 0

Informal path 0m to <1.0m 58.6 1 Sidewalk - passenger-side Km %

Page 23

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

Physical barrier 5.5 0

Non-physical separation >= 3.0m 6.9 0

Non-physical separation 1.0m to <3.0m 54.2 1

Non-physical separation 0m to <1.0m 68.8 1

None 4,527.1 96

Informal path >= 1.0m 12.6 0

Informal path 0m to <1.0m 63.0 1 Sight distance Km %

Adequate 4,351.4 92

Poor 386.7 8 Skid resistance / grip Km %

Sealed - adequate 3,691.7 78

Sealed - medium 2.9 0

Sealed - poor 1,043.5 22 Speed limit Km %

<30km/h 42.4 1

40km/h 120.9 3

50km/h 503.5 11

60km/h 310.3 7

70km/h 378.9 8

80km/h 387.3 8

90km/h 875.3 18

100km/h 402.5 8

110km/h 114.8 2

120km/h 848.2 18

130km/h 730.5 15

>=150km/h 23.5 0 Motorcycle speed limit Km %

<30km/h 42.4 1

40km/h 120.9 3

50km/h 503.5 11

60km/h 310.3 7

70km/h 378.9 8

80km/h 387.3 8

90km/h 875.3 18

Page 24

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

100km/h 402.5 8

110km/h 114.8 2

120km/h 848.2 18

130km/h 730.5 15

>=150km/h 23.5 0 Truck speed limit Km %

<30km/h 42.4 1

40km/h 120.9 3

50km/h 511.3 11

60km/h 310.5 7

70km/h 385.9 8

80km/h 3,086.6 65

90km/h 247.8 5

100km/h 9.1 0

120km/h 0.1 0

>=150km/h 23.5 0 Speed management / traffic calming Km %

Not present 4,614.5 97

Present 123.6 3 Street lighting Km %

Not present 2,879.9 61

Present 1,858.2 39 Upgrade cost Km %

Low 813.9 17

Medium 1,505.5 32

High 2,418.7 51 Vehicle parking Km %

Low 4,540.1 96

Medium 144.3 3

High 53.7 1 Table 2: Details of the inspected road network in Greece

From the detailed information, we can find that about 60% of the inspected road network is undivided road. The delineation of 29% road segments (by carriageway length) is poor. The vast majority of the inspected roads (95%) are in rural areas, and only about 4% of all roads are equipped with sidewalks for pedestrians whereas pedestrian activity may be anticipated on 41 per cent. 56% of roads were considered as having good surface, 26% have medium surface

Page 25

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE condition, and 18% of roads were recorded as having poor road surface. In many cases the operating speed is largely higher than the speed limit, especially at intersections or sharp curves and wherever enforcement is lacking. About 60% of the inspected road network has metal or concrete barriers on both sides, while dangerous roadside objects like trees with a diameter of more than 10cm, poles and posts, unprotected safety barrier ends, aggressive vertical faces and cliffs are very common.

Page 26

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

3 Data collection and coding

3.1 Road Survey

The road survey was carried out between 17thof September – 5thof December 2013 on the previously defined network. The process was carried out in accordance with the iRAP standards. Weather conditions were satisfying for the survey, and no major technical difficulties were experienced. The survey team consisted of Stelios Efstathiadis, Manolis Androulidakis, Aristoklis Aegides, Vassilis Malovrouvas, Katerina Koulourioti and Kostas Kitsos from TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS. All team members were on the board for the entire time of the survey. The survey was completed in a smooth and timely fashion without facing any major issues.

3.1.1 Road Survey Equipment

The inspection system was developed by experts of ARRB group. The road inspection vehicle used was equipped with high-resolution cameras (three cameras in the front capturing the 1800 driver’s view front). The cameras are attached to the roof of the inspection vehicle in special waterproof cases, and connected to a PC built in the trunk of the car. The cameras are controlled by a keyboard and a monitor in the hands of the vehicle passenger using a remote desktop system. For geo-referencing purposes a GPS probe was used, connected also to the built-in PC. The Hawkeye Onlooker Live software, also developed by ARRB group, was used to combine the video footage with the GPS data at the same time.The whole system is mounted into the specifically modified inspection vehicle Mercedes Vito. The vehicle was equipped with prescribed logos for presentation purposes. Digital images of minimum resolution 1280x960 pixels were collected in 10m intervals while driving at the normal speed. Geo-referenced data have been provided for each digital image, including the distance along the road (from the determined start point), longitude and latitude, date and time.

Figure 4: The inspection vehicle

Page 27

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

3.1.2 Coding Team

The road coding team for the Greek network consisted of four coders. Each coder was working maximum 4 hours per day. Coders who worked on the Greek network:  Katerina Koulourioti  Krystalia Ntalouka  Orpheas Stefas  Manolis Androulidakis

The coding team was being continuously managed and controlled by Stelios Efstathiadis an experienced and certified engineer to ensure sufficient quality and homogeneity of the coding.

All of the above mentioned professionals have vast experience with road safety audits and inspections on various types of roads, while the coordinator was ready to assist the coders in case of any unclarities during the whole process.

3.2 Data coding

After the completion of the road inspection phase, the process of coding of video material took place. Coding represents the process of determining specific road attributes, for each of the 100 meters interval of the inspected roads, according to the RAP-SR-2.1 Star Rating and Investment Plan – Survey and Coding Specification and the RAP-SR-2.2 Star Rating coding manual.

Figure 5: Road coding team & workstation

The quality assurance process was the next important phase of the coding process and assessed whether the road attributes captured in the road inspection had been rated correctly. It was an important validation step prior to calculation of Star Ratings, data interrogation and further consultation with stakeholders. A requirement of the RAP method, according to the RAP-SR-2-4 – Road Coding Quality Assurance Guide, is the external review of a minimum 10% of the data coded from road inspections. It is recommended that this external review is carried out at three key stages of

Page 28

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE the process – after completion of 25%, 50% and 100% of the coding. This enables issues to be resolved early thus reducing the amount of recoding required. The Quality Assurance of the specific dataset was performed by Indian Road Survey & Management Pvt. Ltd. (IRSM) which is an accredited RAP supplier and was commissioned by the SENSOR project to perform the QA task. The basic assumptions used regarding the traffic volume, the pedestrian and bicycle volume, the operating speed, the crash data the countermeasure costs and the economic data on which the made during the coding phase are presented in the following paragraphs.

3.2.1 Traffic Volume

Traffic volume data is used in the iRAP model as a multiplier to estimate the number of deaths and serious injuries that could be prevented on the roads. In Greece there is not a single database or source that encompasses traffic volumes of the road network. Traffic volumes are measured only where relevant data is required. Therefore, the necessary traffic volumes of the network under investigation were obtained from the following sources: . Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure and Networks . TEN/tec database . Road concession companies (road operators) . existing - previous studies of TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS The detailed, per section, traffic volumes of the network are shown at Annex 1.

3.2.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle volume

The ViDA model requires also inputting four types of flows for each 100m section of the surveyed network:  Pedestrian peak hour flow across the road  Pedestrian peak hour flow along the driver-side  Pedestrian peak hour flow along the passenger-side  Bicyclist peak hour flow along the road

These types of data are difficult to obtain as there are no relevant measurements. To overcome this issue, appropriate estimations were made using the RAP pre-processor tool. This tool estimates the pedestrians and bicyclists flows based on the coded attributes like Land use, Area type, Pedestrian crossing facilities, Sidewalk provision etc. The percentage of movements with bicycles, over the total, is very little, and mainly at urban environments. At rural highways no bicycles circulate. Thus, no analysis performed for bicyclists. The basic flows and the multiplier matrix for various land use along the road are displayed in the following Figures.

Page 29

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

Figure 6 – Basic pedestrian flows

Figure 7 – Basic bicyclists’ flows In addition, number of conditions was applied to better estimate the real pedestrian and bicyclist flows. In particular:  In sections where pedestrians/bicyclists were observed, the minimum base flow multiplier was set to 1. Where more than 8 pedestrians/bicyclists were observed, the minimum base flow multiplier was set to 1.5.  On dual carriageway roads with a median barrier (without pedestrian crossing facility) the pedestrian crossing flow was set to 0.  Where pedestrian crossing facility is present, the minimum base flow was set to 1, and the pedestrian crossing flow is multiplied by 1.5.  Where an intersection is present, the base pedestrian crossing flow is multiplied by 1.25.  It is assumed that pedestrians do not walk in medians on dual carriageway roads.  Where a sidewalk facility is present, the minimum pedestrian base flow multiplier along the road is set to 1.  Where vehicles park either on one or both sides of the road (including bus stops), the minimum pedestrian base flow multiplier is set to 1.  In all rural areas, the values are multiplied by 0.1 for the passengers along, and bicyclists along flows. The pedestrian crossing flow is multiplied by 0.2.  On rural dual carriageway roads all flows are set to 0.

Page 30

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

 Due to very little usage of bicycles in Greece, flows are set to 0.

The assumptions surrounding pedestrian flow crossing the road have been chosen conservatively. In the absence of local data or knowledge this is often a better course of action because it discourages the model from proposing measures at inappropriate locations. Local input during stakeholder consultation will enable refinement to targeting of pedestrian provision but it is likely that priorities should in any case focus on the review and improvement of existing pedestrian crossing facilities.

Because the lack of the adequate sidewalk (lots of them is taken by the vehicle parking) and pedestrian facility to across the road. The pedestrians walk together with vehicles. It is very dangerous for the pedestrian, especially for the children, elder and women.

3.2.3 Operating Speed

The level of risk of death or serious injury on a road is highly dependent on the speed at which the traffic travels. The RAP method indicates that risk assessments must be performed using the ‘operating speed’ on a road. Operating speed is defined as being the greater of the legislated speed limit or the measured 85th percentile speed. The operating speed is one of 52 variables used in generating the Star Rating and an indication of the relationship between speed and assumed risk can be seen in the appendices. (Mean speed is used in the fatality estimation routines.) EuroRAP and iRAP who supported this work have experience and data from survey work in about 80 countries worldwide. Estimated operating speeds across the networks surveyed in SENSoR were measured in a series of counts in SENSoR countries (notably in Slovenia) where it was possible to work with road authorities and other stakeholders. Some examples of these counts are provided in the annexes of many of the SENSoR technical reports. When possible, these counts were supplemented with advice from local engineers and police. Informal estimates were also made from the survey vehicle on an ad hoc basis whilst it was travelling as a “floating vehicle” in the traffic stream using techniques long-established in traffic engineering (see, for example, the comments in the “Moving Car Observer” technique (Wardrop and Charlesworth (1954)[1]). Nevertheless, speed data are not usually available for every individual road or section at frequent intervals and, in the absence of detailed information, it is necessary to make assumptions about general speeds over the network based on the available data and local knowledge. Many EuroRAP and iRAP speed surveys have found that it is not uncommon for 85th percentile speeds to exceed the speed limit by 10 km/h over a range of speeds. Within the context and limitations of a drive-through survey, this is the assumption used in this work and generally it is supported by speed counts taken in these countries and their neighbours. When the posted speed limit at small sections over a long road segment was limited to a significantly lesser figure, it was assumed that the operating speeds remained constant to the overall longer road segment. This was mainly encountered at intersections. It

[1] Wardrop J. G. and Charlesworth G. (1954). A method of estimating speed and flow of traffic from a moving vehicle. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. part II, 3, 158-171.

Page 31

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE is though recognised that there will be variation between roads and locations, times of day, and indeed between countries, based upon such factors as level of speed limit enforcement, road layout, local features such as bends, general attitudes to speed, levels of traffic, to name just a few. Part of this stakeholder consultation is to seek information and set data collection in place that will provide richer data sources for future road assessments.

3.2.4 Crash Data

The crash number, the death person number and the serious injured person number for all roads are used to support the countermeasure selection and economic analysis. The traffic crash data for the years 2010 - 2013 are presented at the following Table.

2010 2011 2012 2013

Total deaths in road accidents 1,280 1,141 984 861

At the TEN-T road network that is assessed, 218 fatal accidents occurred during 2010. The road users involved in these accidents were 77% car occupants, 16% motorcyclists, and 7% pedestrians.

3.2.5 Countermeasures costs

In order the Safer Road Investment Plan to be developed, the costs of variations on 94 countermeasures must be estimated. This will enable the determination of the benefit-cost ratio of each proposed countermeasure. The costs must include all costs of design, engineering, materials, work, land as well as maintenance for their entire life cycle. Within SENSoR, these costs were determined using common approach followed by all project partners. This approach was based on a research implemented by the SENSoR project partner AMZS Slovenia, and are presented in Annex 2. The costs are in local currencies (Euro). The countermeasure costs data used output should be considered as model patterns; however the ViDA online software allows calibrating the countermeasure costs according to exact data, given by the particular national road authorities. Details are provided in Annex 2. . In some cases a low countermeasure cost has been assumed in order to enable the model to consider all suitable candidate sites for that measure.

3.2.6 Economic data

1. Analysis period The number of years over which the economic benefits of the Safer Roads Investment Plan is calculated. The value for this project is set to 20 years. 2. Gross Domestic Product The key figure for the Safer Road Investment Plan is the GDP per capita in local currency. As the source of this figure the IMF World Economic Outlook Database of October 2013 was used. The GDP per capita in Greece for 2014 is 16,376 EUR. 3. Discount rate and minimum attractive rate of return Discounting is a technique used, among other things, to estimate costs and benefits that occur in different time periods and is used to calculate the Net Present Values (NPV) and

Page 32

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE budgets required within iRAP’s ViDA software. The appropriate discount rate to use can vary by country and in many investment project modelling exercises is set in consultation with the funder. Typically, the discount rate varies from 4% to 12%, the latter figure being often used in World Bank transport projects. In SENSoR, a figure of 12% has been used in many countries, whereas in others, after local consultation, 9% and 4% has been used. A sensitivity analysis conducted within the ViDA Model showed that from a practical perspective, at a 12% discount rate compared with 4%, the total Present Value of safety benefits was approximately halved, the overall estimated cost of the investment is reduced by about a third and the estimated number of fatal and serious injuries saved over 20 years is reduced by about 10%. Lists of triggered countermeasures are similar with, as expected, slightly fewer sites or lengths of road recommended for improvement when the discount rate is higher. Again, as part of the consultation process in individual countries, variations on the discount rate can be trialled. In Greece, a discount rate of 9% has been used in this consultation report. The minimum attractive rate of return has been set at the decimal fraction equivalent. High discount rates and the implied zero-traffic growth assumption within the model would mean that the Benefit Cost Ratios and estimates of casualties saved are highly conservative. 4. Value of life This figure reflects the social cost of one fatality on the road. According to the Hellenic Association of Transportation Engineers, the value of life is estimated at 1,600,000 EUR. 5. Value of serious injury This figure reflects the social cost of one serious injury on the road. In this project the iRAP recommendation of Value of life x 0.25 (see McMahon and Dahdah (2008) http://www.irap.org/en/about-irap-3/research-and-technical-papers?download=45:the-true- cost-of-road-crashes-valuing-life-and-the-cost-of-a-serious-injury-espaol) was used. Thus, the value of serious was estimated as 400,000 EUR.

4 Star Rating Results

Based on the coded and supporting data, the ViDA online software produces star rating of the surveyed network. The star rating is based on individual relative risk for three user groups – vehicle occupants, passengers and motorcyclists. Bicyclists’ results were excluded because of lack of bicycle usage (they represent less than 0.01% in rural roads). Therefore, three different star ratings were produced. The software is also capable of smoothing the data in order to eliminate random star rating differences over short sections of road.

4.1 Overall Star Ratings Results

The Star Ratings results for the entire road network analysed are presented in the next figures for each user group.

Page 33

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

Figure 8– Star Rating results for the inspected network As seen on the above table, less than 0.5% of the Greek surveyed network was awarded 5 stars, and only 4% was awarded 4 stars for the vehicle occupants. 45% of the network was awarded 3 stars, while more than one-third (35%) of the network gained only one star. The rating for the motorcyclists is worse when the majority of the network belongs to to the one- star high-risk category. Pedestrians’ results are distorted by the fact that more than half of the inspected network was not star rated for pedestrians. This is due to non-existent pedestrian flow on these sections. The examined roads are dual-carriageway, rural highways. Nevertheless, it is evident that the rated road sections for the vulnerable road users were awarded poor rating, especially the pedestrians’ safety rating turned out to be very low. The total length adds up to 4,738 km which is more than the network length stated (3,600 km). This is due to the fact that the dual carriageway roads were surveyed in both directions. The table shows the Star Rating before smoothing – raw data. The next figures show Star Rating maps after smoothing.

Page 34

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

Figure 9 – Star Rating map for vehicle occupants

Figure 10 – Star Rating map for motorcyclists

Page 35

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

Figure 11 – Star Rating map for pedestrians The lack of pedestrian facilities is evident in the examined Greek network. The following examples are indicative of the problem.

EXAMPLE 1

Example 1 – No sidewalk provision in a build-up area (National Road 18)

Page 36

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

EXAMPLE 2

Example 2 – Poor quality of pedestrian paths and facilities at a crossing (National Road 18)

EXAMPLE 3

Example 3 – Absence of a pedestrian footpath in a village and pedestrians walking on the road (National Road 38)

Page 37

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

4.2 Detailed Star Ratings Results

In the next chapters, a road section was chosen to demonstrate the Star Rating results in detail, and to explain the reasons behind the overall poor rating. This section can be understood as case study where the most common road safety deficits are identified, and their risk to the road users is explained.

4.2.1 EO-6 – Section Velestino (A1) - Volos

The section EO-1 – Volos of EO-6 road is a typical busy and dangerous first class road in Greece. This particular section starts at the town of Velestino (A1 road) and reaches to the city of Volos, one of the biggest cities of Greece. It is a dual carriageway road and its total length is about 28 km (14 km each direction). The recorded traffic flow in 2010 was approximately 10,000 vehicles per day.

Figure 12 – Star Rating map for the section Velestino (A1) – Volos

Page 38

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

Table 3 – Star Rating for the section Velestino (A1) – Volos

The Star Rating results for this particular road are quite poor. Almost the half (46%) of the section is rated as 1-star for vehicle occupants. To illustrate the risk distribution along the road, specific ViDA tool can be used – the Risk Worm. The Risk Worm helps to quickly identify the locations of high risk. The “spikes” in the graph are usually connected to intersections, sharp curves, or similar single factors which increase the risk significantly.

Figure 13 – Risk Worm for the section Velestino (A1) – Volos (first 12 km, direction to Volos)

When looking at the statistics of coded attributes along this section, the reason for the overall poor safety rating can be identified. 75% of the road length was recorded with ‘medium’ surface condition and 10% with ‘poor’. The delineation was coded as poor for the 10% of the road. Moreover, paved shoulders on passenger’s side are wide (≥2.4m) in about 30% of cases and medium (1.0 to 2.4m) in about 55%, although about 15% of the section has narrow (less than 1m) or no paved shoulder at all. Roadside severity objects are another major cause of the poor rating. Unprotected signs post or poles are present on 38% of the road on driver’s

Page 39

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE sides. About the half of the section is protected by safety barrier, on both sides. Upwards and downwards slopes are also common, as well as unprotected safety barrier ends. Examples of the above stated safety deficits are shown in the following pictures.

EXAMPLE 4

Example 4 – Median with street light poles and no safety barrier. No safety barrier at the passenger’s side as well.

Page 40

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

EXAMPLE 5

Example 5 – An intersection with many problems (poor road surface, delineation and pedestrian crossing)

5 Safer Roads Investments Plan (SRIP)

The basic output of the RAP method, as described in paragraph 1 is the Safer Roads Investment Plan. The SRIP presents all the countermeasures proved able to provide the greater safety capacity and maximize the benefit over spent cost of the planned investments. The cost of each countermeasure is compared to the value of life and serious injuries that could be saved and Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) is calculated for each countermeasure proposed. The minimum threshold BCR for the entire SRIP was set to 1. It has to be mentioned that the countermeasures listed are indicative and will need to be assessed and sense-checked with local engineers. The Safer Roads Investment Plan is not a “bill of works”.

5.1 Overall SRIP Results

The SRIP for the entire surveyed network would save 26,520 fatalities and serious injuries over the analysis period of 20 years. The cost of these countermeasures adds up to approx.1billion EUR. The total BCR of the entire investment plan is 6. The next Figure presents the top 10 countermeasures of the SRIP in terms of saved lives and serious injuries (FSI). In addition to the measures presented here, it is likely that benefits would result from the upgrading of the 107 (75%) pedestrian crossings described as of poor quality.

Page 41

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

Figure 14: Top 10 countermeasures for the entire road network, BCR=1 (unrounded data)

The Star Rating results after adopting all the proposed countermeasures are presented in the next figures.

Figure 15 – Star Rating after implementing the SRIP It is clear that the SRIP would improve the Greek road network safety significantly. For vehicle occupants, the number of 1-Star high-risk roads would decrease to only 3%, whereas the 5- Star roads would be present in 15% of cases. Overall number of 91% of 3-or-more-Star roads is undoubtedly a good result. There are improvements in the motorcyclists’ and pedestrians’

Page 42

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE safety as well. However, effect of the SRIP on these user groups is relatively lower than for the vehicle occupants. Bicycle rating was not performed since bicycle traffic is negligible in Greek rural roads.

Figure 16 – Star Rating map for vehicle occupants after implementing the SRIP

Figure 17 – Star Rating map for motorcyclists after implementing the SRIP

Page 43

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

Figure 18 – Star Rating map for pedestrians after implementing the SRIP

Page 44

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

The next figure presents the predicted casualty reductions after implementing the proposed SRIP.

Reduction in FSIs over 20 years

Figure 19 – Predicted casualty reduction map This map focuses on where to address the countermeasures primarily to save the most lives and serious injuries. It is clear that the predicted casualty reduction is evenly spread throughout the network, with some evident sections where focus should be put in the first place because the predicted countermeasures are expected to be most effective in those locations.

Benefit Cost Ratios Across the 14 countries for which there are data in the SENSoR project, the range of Benefit Cost Ratios is typically 5 or 6 for the selected overall investment programmes. For individual countermeasures, the BCRs of those with greatest life-saving potential are of course higher and in most countries include many in the range between 5 and 10, but in some often up to and around 20.

BCRs for some countermeasures are predicted to be even higher, typically  if costs of the measures are low (such as with delineation)  if the risk reduction is focussed on a very limited part of the network (for example, at crossing facilities for pedestrians at a few sites of high activity), or  if a predicted risk is precisely matched with a countermeasure (such as median barriers countering head-on crashes)

BCRs for overall country programmes or countermeasures dependent upon many elements, including the acceptance threshold that is set for matching countermeasures with risk over every 100m, the value of life and the countermeasure costs selected.

Page 45

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

These results for consultation provide a limited scenario of costs and benefits and the ViDA software offers the opportunity for local engineers and policy makers to vary the parameters to match them local circumstances and budgets.

Examples Some of the most effective proposed countermeasures are (photos courtesy of iRAP):  Safety barriers

 Improve curve delineation

 Rumble strips

Page 46

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

 Road surface rehabilitation

5.2 Detailed SRIP Results

The next chapter presents the SRIP details for the ‘case study’ presented in chapter 4.2

5.2.1 EO-6 – Section Velestino (A1) – Volos

The next table presents the top 8 countermeasures for the section Velestino (A1) – Volos, presented in chapter 4.2. It shows the details of the SRIP on this section. The table shows the 8 most important countermeasures in terms of saved FSIs. The ‘leading’ proposed countermeasures are the provision of central median barrier (no duplication) and roadside barriers for the passenger’s side. This would require big investments, evaluation of which is beyond the scope of this project. However, the possibility of implementing this countermeasure should be checked. The next proposed countermeasures are clear – improvement of the road surface, improving of the delineation and protected turn lanes, delineation and signing in intersections.

Table 4 – SRIP for the EO-6, Velestino (A1) – Volos section The Star Rating results for the specific road after adopting all the proposed countermeasures are presented in the next figures.

Page 47

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

Figure 20 – Star Rating for the section Velestino (A1) – Volos, after implementing the SRIP

Figure 21 – Star Rating map for vehicle occupants of the EO-6 Velestino (A1) – Volos section after implementing the SRIP

Page 48

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

6 Conclusions

The Greek TEN-T road network was surveyed between 17 September and 5 December 2013 by TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS using a dedicated survey vehicle and specialised technology. The roads surveyed were either single or dual- carriageways and sometimes a mixture of single- and dual-carriageways. In many cases they are in need of rehabilitation and they do not have the protection or crash-avoiding provision available in high-performing European countries. Crash protection systems such as barriers and modern, well-designed intersections are not provided; the quality of maintenance is often poor. Moreover, pedestrians and the other vulnerable road users are exposed to danger, as in most of the cases there are no facilities for them. Exceptions are the new-built sections of the last decade such as EO-A2 and EO-A7. It is noted that this period of time, a lot of construction works are underway, either upgrading the existing infrastructure either building new infrastructure, replacing the existing. The Star Rating results for infrastructure safety are presented for different classes of road user (on a 1-5 scale) – vehicle occupants, motorcyclists and pedestrians. About half of roads (51%) rate as less than 3-star for vehicle occupants and 96% of the sections rate as less than 3-star for motorcyclists. On the single carriageway parts of the network, the features that lead to death and serious injury in the event of a crash were as expected found to be widely present: o lack of head-on protection o junctions where brutal right-angled side-impacts may occur o hazards such as unprotected electricity poles or trees close to the road o lack of provision for pedestrians and cyclists

Nevertheless, data for the period 2010-2013 (CARE database) reveal that Greece achieved a very important reduction (31%) in total deaths of road users, one of the biggest in Europe. Nevertheless, this impressive decrease is mainly due to the economic crisis which affected traffic volumes and patterns greatly and Greece still has one of the highest rates of road deaths per million inhabitants in the European Union. Furthermore, Greece still lags far behind the EU average and the efforts should be intensified, with the greatest challenge for authorities and citizens being to continue improving despite the restricted budgets for road infrastructure and vehicle maintenance. This is the reason why the SENSoR project is so important. Within this unique project a real- time road safety inspection on 3,600 km of the Greek primary road network was realized. Through the specific analysing software ViDA™ it was possible to identify the dangerous high risk road sections. The extracted results are reliable and they depict the reasons why Greece has the highest rate of road deaths in EU. Almost none of the Greek surveyed superior road network (TEN-T) was awarded 5 stars, and 4% was awarded 4 stars for the vehicle occupants. Moreover, more than the one-third of the network (35%) gained only 1 star. The ratings for motorcyclists and pedestrians are even worse. Tools developed by iRAP are now frequently applied to help develop “Safer Roads Investment Plans” for national governments and financial institutions. These tools, using a standard pool of variations on more than 90 proven safety measures from international practice, help evaluate how much it would cost to raise star ratings. They also show how the

Page 49

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE most lives can be saved for the money available by targeting high return safety countermeasures at locations of known high risk. These results have been assessed with the potential for fatal and serious casualty reduction predicted in the RAP online software ViDA. The estimated cost of upgrading and rehabilitation along the entire length of this network is assumed to be approximately 1 billion Euros and will provide a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 6. The casualty reduction on the priority sections would be around 55% – around 26,520 fatal and serious injuries saved over 20 years if the network is upgraded. Funds for road improvement will be limited and so the tools used in this analysis may be applied to select only parts of the network for improvement and/or a higher BCR threshold may be set to target measures providing higher returns for a smaller budget. The most important proposed countermeasures include duplication with median barrier (on single carriageway parts), roadside barriers on both sides, road surface rehabilitation, delineation improvements and footpath provision. There will also be benefits in upgrading the 107 pedestrian crossings (75%) described as of poor quality. Therefore, since the likelihood a road accident with fatal consequences is still unacceptably high on most Greek roads, the ViDATM software is able to calculate “bank-ready“ safe road infrastructure investment plans with a list of most effective life-saving countermeasures on particular road sections. The countermeasures listed are indicative and will need to be assessed and sense-checked with local engineers and road authorities. The Safer Roads Investment Plan is not a “bill of works”, however we strongly hope, that the Greek road owners, operators, administrators and authorities will accept the project results not as a kind of “competition“, but as a support and the ViDA™ software will become a helpful tool in their daily work.

Page 50

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

Annex 1 – Traffic Volumes and Operating Speeds

type of road ROAD NAME SECTION Volume V85 Vmedian (D/U)

EO-11 1. X EO-1 - X VATHI D 35,000 125 100 EO-11 1. X VATHI - X EO-1 D 35,000 125 100 EO-11 2. X KHALKIS - X VATHI D 33,000 125 100 EO-11 2. X VATHI - X KHALKIS D 33,000 125 100 EO-12 1. EO-A25 - X EO-63 U 9,000 100 85 EO-15 1. X KOROMILIA - X EO-2 U 4,000 95 70 EO-18 1. PREVEZA - X ARTA U 8,000 100 75 EO-18 2. X ARTA - X VRACHOS U 6,000 90 60 EO-18 3. X VRACHOS - X PARGA U 5,000 80 60 EO-18 4. X PARGA - X PERDIKA U 5,000 80 60 EO-18 5. X PERDIKA - X SIVOTA U 5,000 80 60 EO-18 6. X SIVOTA - X EO-A2 U 5,500 85 60 EO-19 1. X EO-42 - X PREVEZA U 6,000 80 65 EO-2 1. X EO-15 - BORDER U 2,500 90 70 EO-20 1. X EO-22 - X ZAGORI U 4,500 95 75

Page 51

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

EO-20 2. X ZAGORI - X EO-6 U 7,000 100 75 EO-20 3. X EO-6 - X PERIFERIAKI IOANNINON U 10,000 85 55 EO-22 1. BORDER - X EO-20 U 3,000 95 75 EO-27 1. X EO-48 - X AMFISSA U 6,000 95 80 EO-27 2. X AMFISSA - X GRAVIA U 5,000 90 75 EO-27 3. X GRAVIA - X EO-3 U 4,500 90 75 EO-3 1. PTOLEMAIDA - X EO-3 U 8,500 100 80 EO-3 1. THIVA - X VILIA U 2,700 80 50 EO-3 1. X EO-27 - X EO-A1 U 4,000 90 75 EO-3 1. X EO-30 - DOMOKOS U 5,000 90 70 EO-3 2. DOMOKOS - X EO-38 U 6,000 105 85 EO-3 2. X EO-3 - X VEVI U 7,000 100 80 EO-3 2. X VILIA - X EO-8A U 3,900 80 55 EO-3 3. X EO-38 - X EO-A1 U 9,500 100 85 EO-3 3. X VEVI - FLORINA U 6,500 100 75 EO-3 4. FLORINA - BORDER U 2,500 70 50 EO-30 1. X 6 - X TRIKALA U 7,500 110 90 EO-30 2. X TRIKALA - X KARDITSA NORTH U 6,500 105 85 EO-30 3. X KARDITSA NORTH - X KARDITSA SOUTH U 6,600 105 80 EO-30 4. X KARDITSA SOUTH - X LARISSA U 5,300 110 85 EO-30 5. X LARISSA - X FARSALA U 5,500 110 85 EO-33 1. OVRYA - X ERIMANTHIA U 3,500 90 70 EO-33 2. X ERIMANTHIA - AG.TRIADA U 2,000 85 65 EO-33 3. AG.TRIADA - LAMPEIA U 1,500 80 55

Page 52

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

EO-33 4. LAMPEIA - X DAFNI U 1,000 75 55 EO-33 5. X DAFNI - X EO-74 U 1,000 75 50 EO-38 1. X 3 - KRAVARITOU U EO-38 10. X PIRGI - KARAMOULA U - - - EO-38 11. KARAMOULA - AGRINIO U - - - EO-38 2. KRAVARITOU - LAMIA CITY LIMIT U 9,500 60 50 EO-38 3. LAMIA CITY LIMIT - LEIANOKLADI U 7,800 80 70 EO-38 4. LEIANOKLADI - MAKRAKOMI U 6,200 95 75 EO-38 5. MAKRAKOMI - X KARPENISSI U 5,000 85 70 EO-38 6. X KARPENISSI - KARPENISSI U 3,500 80 60 EO-38 7. KARPENISSI - X VINIANI U 2,200 55 40 EO-38 8. X VINIANI - EPISKOPI BRIDGE U 2,200 55 40 EO-38 9. EPISKOPI BRIDGE - X PIRGI U 1,800 50 35 EO-39 1. X EO-A7 - ALEPOCHORI U 4,000 100 75 EO-39 2. ALEPOCHORI - SPARTI U 4,000 95 70 EO-42 1. AMFILOCHIA - X DRIMOS U 6,000 80 65 EO-42 2. X DRIMOS - VONITSA U 6,000 80 65 EO-42 3. VONITSA - X EO-18 U 6,000 80 65 EO-44 1. KARISTOS - X MARMARI U 3,500 80 50 EO-44 2. X MARMARI - STYRA U 4,500 80 50 EO-44 3. STYRA - X STIRON-TSAKEON U 5,200 80 50 EO-44 4. X STIRON-TSAKEON - LEPOURA U 5,200 85 50 EO-44 5. LEPOURA - ALIVERI U 6,500 80 50 EO-44 6. ALIVERI - ERETRIA U 7,600 80 50

Page 53

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

EO-44 7. ERETRIA - KHALKIS U 8,500 80 50 EO-48 1. X EO-5 - X NAFPAKTOS U 11,000 90 70 EO-48 2. X NAFPAKTOS - X NAFPAKTOS U 8,600 100 85 EO-48 3. X NAFPAKTOS - X AG.SPIRIDON U 5,500 90 75 EO-48 4. X AG.SPIRIDON - X ERATINI U 4,500 90 75 EO-48 5. X ERATINI - X GALAXIDI U 4,000 90 75 EO-48 6. X GALAXIDI - ITEA U 5,000 90 75 EO-48 7. ITEA - X EO-27 U 5,500 90 75 EO-5 1. X EO-8A - X EO-48 U 8,900 95 75 EO-5 10. X IOANNINA - X EO-20 U 10,500 90 70 EO-5 2. X EO-48 - X MESOLONGION U 7,500 90 70 EO-5 3. X MESOLONGION - A5 U 7,000 90 70 EO-5 4. X EO-A5 - X EO-42 U 6,500 90 75 EO-5 5. X EO-42 - X IONIA ODOS SOUTH U 7,000 95 70 EO-5 6. X IONIA ODOS SOUTH - IONIA ODOS NORTH U 7,000 95 70 EO-5 7. X IONIA ODOS NORTH - CHANI TEREVOU U 7,500 90 65 EO-5 8. CHANI TEREVOU - X EO-A2 U 7,500 90 70 EO-5 9. X EO-A2 - X IOANNINA D 13,500 80 60 EO-5 9. X IOANNINA - X EO-A2 D 13,500 80 60 EO-51 1. X ORESTIADA NORTH - X DIDIMOTICHO SOUTH U 9,000 110 90 EO-51 2. X DIDIMOTICHO SOUTH - MANDRA U 9,500 110 90 EO-51 3. MANDRA - X A2 U 10,000 110 90 EO-6 1. X EO-A1 - X EO-1 U 19,000 90 70 EO-6 1. X EO-A1 - X PERIFERIAKI VOLOU D 10,000 120 100

Page 54

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

EO-6 1. X EO-A2 - X EO-15 U 3,000 85 65 EO-6 1. X PERIFERIAKI VOLOU - X EO-A1 D 10,000 120 100 EO-6 2. VOLOS - X PERIFERIAKI VOLOU D 8,700 110 90 EO-6 2. X EO-1 - X LARISSA U 20,500 90 70 EO-6 2. X EO-15 - X KASTRAKI U 3,500 85 60 EO-6 2. X PERIFERIAKI VOLOU - VOLOS D 8,700 110 90 EO-6 3. X KASTRAKI - X EO-30 U 11,000 115 85 EO-6 3. X LARISSA - X TYRNAVOS U 15,500 100 85 EO-6 4. X EO-30 - X TYRNAVOS D 13,000 110 95 EO-6 4. X TYRNAVOS - X EO-30 D 13,000 110 95 EO-6 5. X EO-30 - X TRIKALA D - - - EO-6 5. X TRIKALA - X EO-30 D - - - EO-63 1. X EO-12 - X EO-A25 D 5,500 105 90 EO-63 1. X EO-A25 - X EO-12 D 5,500 105 90 EO-74 1. X EO-33 - LEVIDI U 1,500 75 50 EO-74 2. LEVIDI - X TRIPOLIS U 2,500 80 60 EO-74 3. X TRIPOLIS - TRIPOLIS U 4,000 90 70 EO-77 1. KHALKIS - PSACHNA U 15,000 78 58 EO-77 2. PSACHNA - PROKOPI U 8,200 75 58 EO-77 3. PROKOPI - X LIMNI U 6,100 75 58 EO-77 4. X LIMNI - AGIA ANNA U 5,400 75 58 EO-77 5. AGIA ANNA - X LOUTRA EDIPSOU U 5,200 75 60 EO-77 6. X LOUTRA EDIPSOU - VASILIKA U 4,500 75 60 EO-77 7. VASILIKA - ARTEMISIO U 4,100 75 60

Page 55

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

EO-77 8. ARTEMISIO - ISTIAIA U 3,700 75 60 EO-89 1. X ATTIKI ODOS - X KOROPIOU-MARKOPOULOU AVE D 17,500 95 80 EO-89 1. X KOROPIOU-MARKOPOULOU AVE - X ATTIKI ODOS D 17,500 95 80 EO-89 2. X KOROPIOU-MARKOPOULOU AVE - X KOUVARAS D 13,000 105 90 EO-89 2. X KOUVARAS - X KOROPIOU-MARKOPOULOU AVE D 13,000 105 90 EO-89 3. X KOUVARAS - X THORIKO D 11,000 110 95 EO-89 3. X THORIKO - KOUVARAS D 11,000 110 95 EO-89 4. X LAVRIO - X THORIKO D 7,500 110 95 EO-89 4. X THORIKO - LAVRIO D 7,500 110 95 EO-8A 3. X EO-A7 - X KIATO U 25,000 100 85 EO-8A 4. X KIATO - X DERVENI U 25,000 100 85 EO-8A 5. X DERVENI - X AIGIO U 12,000 100 85 EO-8A 6. X AIGIO - X EO-A5 U 12,000 100 85 EO-9 1. KALO NERO - ZACHARO U 4,500 95 75 EO-9 2. ZACHARO -PYRGOS U 5,000 100 75 EO-9 3. PYRGOS - X AMALIADA U 6,500 105 80 EO-9 4. X AMALIADA - X ANDRAVIDA U 7,500 100 80 EO-9 5. X ANDRAVIDA - X VARDA U 8,500 100 80 EO-9 6. X VARDA - X KATO ACHAIA U 9,500 105 80 EO-9 7. X KATO ACHAIA - X EO-A5 U 11,000 100 80 EO-90 1. KISSAMOS - X KOLYMVARI U 15,000 100 80 EO-90 10. X MPALI - X FODELE-ACHLADA U 33,000 100 80 EO-90 11. X FODELE-ACHLADA - X GAZI U 34,000 105 80 EO-90 12. X GAZI - X MOIRES D 41,000 110 90

Page 56

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

EO-90 12. X MOIRES - X GAZI D 41,000 110 90 EO-90 13. X GOURNES - X MOIRES D 44,000 110 90 EO-90 13. X MOIRES - X GOURNES D 44,000 110 90 EO-90 14. X GOURNES - X MALIA U 39,000 105 90 EO-90 15. X MALIA - X AG.NIKOLAOS U 33,000 105 90 EO-90 16. X AG.NIKOLAOS - X IERAPETRA U 11,000 90 70 EO-90 17. X IERAPETRA - EXO MOULIANA U 7,000 85 60 EO-90 18. EXO MOULIANA - SITIA U 7,000 75 50 EO-90 2. X KOLYMVARI - X PLATANIAS U 21,000 100 80 EO-90 3. X PLATANIAS - X CHANIA-OMALOS U 27,000 100 80 EO-90 4. X CHANIA-OMALOS - X MOURNIES U 33,000 100 80 EO-90 5. X MOURNIES - X SOUDA U 30,000 105 80 EO-90 6. X SOUDA - KOURNAS U 28,000 105 80 EO-90 7. KOURNAS - X RETHYMNO-ATSIPOPOULO U 31,000 105 80 EO-90 8. X RETHYMNO-ATSIPOPOULO - X PEO RETHYMNO-HERAKLION U 34,000 100 80 EO-90 9. X PEO RETHYMNO-HERAKLION - X MPALI U 32,000 100 80 EO-97 1. AGIOI DEKA - AGIA VARVARA U 4,000 85 65 EO-97 2. AGIA VARVARA - X GOURNES U 5,000 90 70 EO-97 3. X GOURNES - X EO-90 U 6,500 90 80 EO-9A 1. X EO-A7 - KALO NERO U 3,000 85 70 EO-A1 1. SEF - X EO-A6 D 70,000 105 95 EO-A1 1. X EO-A6 - SEF D 70,000 105 95 EO-A1 10. X EO-3 - X RACHES D 9,500 130 110 EO-A1 10. X RACHES - X EO-3 D 9,500 130 110

Page 57

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

EO-A1 11. X ALMYROS - X RACHES D 9,000 130 110 EO-A1 11. X RACHES - X ALMYROS D 9,000 130 110 EO-A1 12. X ALMYROS - X EO-6 D 8,800 130 110 EO-A1 12. X EO-6 - X ALMYROS D 8,800 130 110 EO-A1 13. X EO-6 - X LARISSA D 7,200 130 110 EO-A1 13. X LARISSA - X EO-6 D 7,200 130 110 EO-A1 14. X EVAGGELISMOS - X LARISSA D 9,600 130 110 EO-A1 14. X LARISSA - X EVAGGELISMOS D 9,600 130 110 EO-A1 15. X EVAGGELISMOS - X LEPTOKARYA D 7,200 115 90 EO-A1 15. X LEPTOKARYA - X EVAGGELISMOS D 7,200 115 90 EO-A1 16. X KATERINI - X LEPTOKARYA D 7,800 130 110 EO-A1 16. X LEPTOKARYA - X KATERINI D 7,800 130 110 EO-A1 18. X EO-A2 - X KILKIS U 22,000 125 105 EO-A1 19. BORDER - X KILKIS D 16,000 130 110 EO-A1 19. X KILKIS - BORDER D 16,000 130 110 EO-A1 2. X AG.STEFANOS - X EO-A6 D 55,000 120 100 EO-A1 2. X EO-A6 - X AGIOS STEFANOS D 55,000 120 100 EO-A1 3. X AGIOS STEFANOS - X OINOFYTA-AVLONAS D 45,000 130 105 EO-A1 3. X OINOFYTA-AVLONAS - X AG.STEFANOS D 45,000 130 105 EO-A1 4. X OINOFYTA-AVLONAS - X THIVA D 40,000 130 110 EO-A1 4. X THIVA - X OINOFYTA-AVLONAS D 40,000 130 110 EO-A1 5. X KASTRO - X THIVA D 13,000 130 110 EO-A1 5. X THIVA - X KASTRO D 13,000 130 110 EO-A1 6. X KASTRO - X MALESINA D 12,000 130 110

Page 58

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

EO-A1 6. X MALESINA - X KASTRO D 12,000 130 110 EO-A1 7. X DELFI-ATALANTI - X MALESINA D 12,000 130 110 EO-A1 7. X MALESINA - X DELFI-ATALANTI D 12,000 130 110 EO-A1 8. X DELFI-ATALANTI - X KAMENA VOURLA D 11,000 130 110 EO-A1 8. X KAMENA VOURLA - DELFI-ATALANTI D 11,000 130 110 EO-A1 9. X EO-3 - X KAMENA VOURLA D 10,500 130 110 EO-A1 9. X KAMENA VOURLA - X EO-3 D 10,500 130 110 EO-A2 1. X IGOUMENITSA - X PARAMYTHIA D 6,250 125 100 EO-A2 1. X PARAMYTHIA - X IGOUMENITSA D 6,250 125 100 EO-A2 10. X EO-A27 - X KOZANI SOUTH D 8,500 115 85 EO-A2 10. X KOZANI SOUTH - X EO-A27 D 8,500 115 85 EO-A2 11. X EO-A27 - X POLIMILOS D 11,000 110 80 EO-A2 11. X POLIMILOS - X EO-A27 D 11,000 110 80 EO-A2 12. X POLIMILOS - X VEROIA D 11,300 115 85 EO-A2 12. X VEROIA - X POLIMILOS D 11,300 115 85 EO-A2 13. X ALEXANDRIA - X VEROIA D 17,500 120 95 EO-A2 13. X VEROIA - X ALEXANDRIA D 17,500 120 95 EO-A2 14. X ALEXANDRIA - X EO-A1 D 20,000 120 95 EO-A2 14. X EO-A1 - X ALEXANDRIA D 20,000 120 95 EO-A2 15. X EO-1 - X EO-A1 D 23,000 120 95 EO-A2 15. X EO-A1 - X EO-1 D 23,000 120 95 EO-A2 16. X EO-1 - X THESSALONIKI KALOCHORI D 24,500 120 95 EO-A2 16. X THESSALONIKI KALOCHORI - X EO-1 D 24,500 120 95 EO-A2 17. X THESSALONIKI KALOCHORI - X THESSALONIKI TITAN D 43,000 115 95

Page 59

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

EO-A2 17. X THESSALONIKI TITAN - X THESSALONIKI KALOCHORI D 43,000 115 95 EO-A2 18. X EO-A25 - X THESSALONIKI TITAN D 50,000 115 95 EO-A2 18. X THESSALONIKI TITAN - X EO-A25 D 50,000 115 95 EO-A2 19. X ASPROVALTA - X EO-A25 D 16,000 125 95 EO-A2 19. X EO-A25 - X ASPROVALTA D 16,000 125 95 EO-A2 2. X DODONI - X PARAMYTHIA D 6,400 120 95 EO-A2 2. X PARAMYTHIA - X DODONI D 6,400 120 95 EO-A2 20. X ASPROVALTA - X EO-59 D 13,000 125 95 EO-A2 20. X EO-59 - X ASPROVALTA D 13,000 125 95 EO-A2 21. X AG.ANDREAS - X EO-59 D 12,000 120 90 EO-A2 21. X EO-59 - X AG.ANDREAS D 12,000 120 90 EO-A2 22. PROBLEM - X EO-12 D 12,000 120 100 EO-A2 22. X AG.ANDREAS - PROBLEM D 12,000 120 100 EO-A2 22. X EO-12 - X AG.ANDREAS D 12,000 120 100 EO-A2 23. X EO-12 - X EO-2 D 14,000 110 90 EO-A2 23. X EO-2 - X EO-12 D 14,000 110 90 EO-A2 24. X EO-2 - X XANTHI WEST D 9,500 125 95 EO-A2 24. X XANTHI WEST - X EO-2 D 9,500 125 95 EO-A2 25. X KOMOTINI EAST - X XANTHI WEST D 8,000 125 95 EO-A2 25. X XANTHI WEST - X KOMOTINI EAST D 8,000 125 95 EO-A2 26. X KOMOTINI EAST - X SAPES D 7,000 120 90 EO-A2 26. X SAPES - X KOMOTINI EAST D 7,000 120 90 EO-A2 27. X ALEXANDROUPOLIS - X SAPES D 6,000 120 90 EO-A2 27. X SAPES - X ALEXANDROUPOLIS D 6,000 120 90

Page 60

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

EO-A2 28. X ALEXANDROUPOLIS - X EO-51 D 5,500 120 90 EO-A2 28. X EO-51 - X ALEXANDROUPOLIS D 5,500 120 90 EO-A2 29. BORDER - X EO-51 D 5,000 120 90 EO-A2 29. X EO-51 - BORDER D 5,000 120 90 EO-A2 3. X DODONI - X EO-5 D 6,500 120 90 EO-A2 3. X EO-5 - X DODONI D 6,500 120 90 EO-A2 4. X EO-5 - X ZAGORI D 7,650 110 85 EO-A2 4. X ZAGORI - X EO-5 D 7,650 110 85 EO-A2 5. X METSOVO - X ZAGORI D 7,700 105 80 EO-A2 5. X ZAGORI - X METSOVO D 7,700 105 80 EO-A2 6. X METEORA - X METSOVO D 7,550 105 75 EO-A2 6. X METSOVO - X METEORA D 7,550 105 75 EO-A2 7. X GREVENA SOUTH - X METEORA D 7,550 105 75 EO-A2 7. X METEORA - X GREVENA SOUTH D 7,550 105 75 EO-A2 8. X EO-A29 - X GREVENA SOUTH D 7,000 105 80 EO-A2 8. X GREVENA SOUTH - X EO-A29 D 7,000 105 80 EO-A2 9. X EO-A29 - X KOZANI SOUTH D 7,600 120 88 EO-A2 9. X KOZANI SOUTH - X EO-A29 D 7,600 120 88 EO-A25 1. X EO-A2 - X KILKIS D 11,000 120 100 EO-A25 1. X KILKIS - X EO-A2 D 11,000 120 100 EO-A25 2. X KILKIS - X XILOPOLI D 10,000 115 95 EO-A25 2. X XILOPOLI - X KILKIS D 10,000 115 95 EO-A25 3. EO-12 - X XILOPOLI D 9,500 110 95 EO-A25 3. X XILOPOLI - EO-12 D 9,500 110 95

Page 61

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

EO-A25 4. BORDER - X EO-63 D 4,500 110 95 EO-A25 4. X EO-63 - BORDER D 4,500 110 95 EO-A27 1. X EO-A2 - X PTOLEMAIDA D 12,000 120 85 EO-A27 1. X PTOLEMAIDA - X EO-A2 D 12,000 120 85 EO-A29 1. X EO-A2 - X GERMAS D 6,500 125 90 EO-A29 1. X GERMAS - X EO-A2 D 6,500 125 90 EO-A29 2. X GERMAS - X KOROMILIA D 5,000 125 90 EO-A29 2. X KOROMILIA - X GERMAS D 5,000 125 90 EO-A5 1. RIGANI - X EO-5 SOUTH D 8,500 125 105 EO-A5 1. X EO-5 SOUTH - RIGANI D 8,500 125 105 EO-A5 1. X EO-8A - X EO-9 D 13,000 125 100 EO-A5 1. X EO-9 - X EO-8A D 13,000 125 100 EO-A5 2. RIGANI - X EO-5 NORTH D 8,500 125 105 EO-A5 2. X EO-5 NORTH - RIGANI D 8,500 125 105 EO-A6 1. X EO-A65 - X EO-A8 D 19,700 105 95 EO-A6 1. X EO-A8 - X EO-A65 D 19,700 105 95 EO-A6 2. X EO-A1 - X EO-A65 D 120,700 105 95 EO-A6 2. X EO-A65 - X EO-A1 D 120,700 105 95 EO-A6 3. X EO-A1 - X EO-A642 D 120,700 100 95 EO-A6 3. X EO-A642 - X EO-A1 D 120,700 100 95 EO-A6 4. X EO-A64 - X EO-A642 D 90,000 95 90 EO-A6 4. X EO-A642 - X EO-A64 D 90,000 95 90 EO-A6 5. X EO-A62 - X EO-A64 D 70,000 100 90 EO-A6 5. X EO-A64 - X EO-A62 D 70,000 100 90

Page 62

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

EO-A7 1. X 8A - X MYKINES D 14,200 120 100 EO-A7 1. X MYKINES - X 8A D 14,200 120 100 EO-A7 2. X ARGOS - X MYKINES D 14,100 120 100 EO-A7 2. X MYKINES - X ARGOS D 14,100 120 100 EO-A7 3. X ANCIENT OLYMPIA - X ARGOS D 10,400 120 100 EO-A7 3. X ARGOS - X ANCIENT OLYMPIA D 10,400 120 100 EO-A7 4. X ANCIENT OLYMPIA - X TRIPOLI NORTH D 9,800 120 100 EO-A7 4. X TRIPOLI NORTH - X ANCIENT OLYMPIA D 9,800 120 100 EO-A7 5. X SPARTI - X TRIPOLI NORTH D 8,000 120 100 EO-A7 5. X TRIPOLI NORTH - X SPARTI D 8,000 120 100 EO-A7 6. X MEGALOPOLI - X SPARTI D 5,600 120 100 EO-A7 6. X SPARTI - X MEGALOPOLI D 5,600 120 100 EO-A7 7. X E55 - X MEGALOPOLI D 3,250 120 100 EO-A7 7. X MEGALOPOLI - X E55 D 3,250 120 100 EO-A7 8. X E55 - X PILOS D 3,800 120 100 EO-A7 8. X PILOS - X E55 D 3,800 120 100 EO-A8 1. X AGIOI THEODOROI - X EO-A6 D 49,000 130 100 EO-A8 1. X EO-A6 - X AGIOI THEODOROI D 49,000 130 100 EO-A8 2. X AGIOI THEODOROI - X EO-A7 D 41,000 130 105 EO-A8 2. X EO-A7 - X AGIOI THEODOROI D 41,000 130 105

Page 63

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

Annex 2 – Countermeasure costs

RURAL URBAN RURAL Med RURAL High URBAN Med Countermeasure Service Low URBAN Low High Countermeasure C'way Code Unit of Cost Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade ID Life Upgrade Upgrade Cost Upgrade Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost

1 Improve delineation Individual lane km 5 2,500 3,000 3,500 2,300 2,600 3,000

2 Bicycle lane (on-road) Individual per km 20 7,000 8,500 10,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

3 Bicycle lane (off-road) Individual per km 20 40,000 70,000 100,000 30,000 50,000 80,000

4 Motorcycle lane (painted logos only on-road) Individual per km 5 2,000 2,500 3,000 2,000 2,500 3,000

5 Motorcycle lane (construct on-road) Individual per km 20 40,000 50,000 60,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

6 Motorcycle lane (segregated) Individual per km 20 80,000 100,000 120,000 70,000 90,000 100,000

7 Horizontal realignment Individual lane km 20 50,000 100,000 150,000 40,000 90,000 140,000

8 Improve curve delineation Individual per carriageway km 5 4,000 4,800 5,600 3,680 4,160 4,800

9 Lane widening (up to 0.5m) Individual lane km 10 20,000 25,000 30,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

10 Lane widening (>0.5m) Individual lane km 10 40,000 50,000 60,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

11 Protected turn lane (unsignalised 3 leg) Multi intersection 10 30,000 40,000 50,000 25,000 35,000 42,000

12 Protected turn lane (unsignalised 4 leg) Multi intersection 10 30,000 40,000 50,000 25,000 35,000 42,000

13 Delineation and signing (intersection) Multi intersection 5 3,500 5,000 8,000 3,500 5,000 8,000

14 Protected turn provision at existing signalised site (3-leg) Multi intersection 10 3,500 5,000 8,000 3,500 5,000 8,000

15 Protected turn provision at existing signalised site (4-leg) Multi intersection 10 3,500 5,000 8,000 3,500 5,000 8,000

16 Signalise intersection (3-leg) Multi intersection 20 25,000 30,000 40,000 25,000 30,000 40,000

17 Signalise intersection (4-leg) Multi intersection 20 25,000 30,000 40,000 25,000 30,000 40,000

18 Grade separation Multi intersection 50 4,000,000 6,000,000 9,000,000 3,500,000 5,000,000 8,000,000

19 Rail crossing upgrade Multi intersection 20 100,000 250,000 400,000 100,000 250,000 400,000

20 Roundabout Multi intersection 20 80,000 150,000 500,000 80,000 150,000 300,000

21 Central hatching Multi per km 10 3,000 4,000 5,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Page 64

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

22 Rumble strip / flexi-post Multi per km 10 7,500 8,500 10,000 7,500 8,500 10,000

23 Central turning lane full length Multi per km 10 40,000 55,000 75,000 40,000 55,000 75,000

24 Central median barrier (no duplication) Multi per km 10 150,000 160,000 170,000 150,000 160,000 170,000

25 Duplication with median barrier Undivided Only per carriageway km 20 600,000 640,000 680,000 630,000 670,000 710,000

26 Duplicate - <1m median Undivided Only per carriageway km 20 150,000 180,000 220,000 180,000 210,000 250,000

27 Duplicate - 1-5 m median Undivided Only per carriageway km 20 350,000 450,000 600,000 380,000 480,000 630,000

28 Duplicate - 5-10m median Undivided Only per carriageway km 20 580,000 700,000 850,000 610,000 730,000 880,000

29 Duplicate - 10-20m median Undivided Only per carriageway km 20 650,000 690,000 730,000 680,000 720,000 760,000

30 Duplicate - >20m median Undivided Only per carriageway km 20 800,000 840,000 880,000 830,000 870,000 910,000

31 Service Road Individual per km 20 60,000 80,000 100,000 60,000 80,000 100,000

32 Additional lane (2 + 1 road) Individual per km 20 75,000 80,000 85,000 75,000 80,000 85,000

33 Implement one way network Undivided Only per carriageway km 20 40,000 55,000 70,000 30,000 45,000 60,000

34 Upgrade pedestrian facility quality Individual unit 10 4,000 6,500 9,000 3,000 5,000 7,000

35 Refuge Island Multi unit 10 5,000 7,500 8,500 5,000 7,500 8,500

36 Unsignalised crossing Multi unit 10 800 1,200 1,500 600 800 1,000

37 Signalised crossing Multi unit 20 20,000 25,000 30,000 15,000 18,000 20,000

38 Grade separated pedestrian facility Multi unit 50 60,000 100,000 150,000 50,000 100,000 140,000

40 Road surface rehabilitation Individual lane km 10 6,000 8,000 10,000 5,000 7,000 8,000

41 Clear roadside hazards - passenger side Individual per linear km 20 3,000 4,000 5,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

42 Clear roadside hazards - driver side Individual per linear km 20 3,000 4,000 5,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

43 Sideslope improvement - passenger side Individual per linear km 20 8,000 20,000 35,000 8,000 20,000 35,000

44 Sideslope improvement - driver side Individual per linear km 20 8,000 20,000 35,000 8,000 20,000 35,000

45 Roadside barriers - passenger side Individual per linear km 20 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

46 Roadside barriers - driver side Individual per linear km 20 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

47 Shoulder sealing passenger side (<1m) Individual per linear km 20 8,000 12,000 18,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

Page 65

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

48 Shoulder sealing passenger side (>1m) Individual per linear km 20 8,000 12,000 18,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

52 Restrict/combine direct access points Individual per km 10 100,000 150,000 200,000 60,000 80,000 120,000

54 Footpath provision passenger side (adjacent to road) Individual per km 20 40,000 50,000 60,000 40,000 45,000 50,000

55 Footpath provision passenger side (>3m from road) Individual per km 20 55,000 70,000 90,000 42,000 50,000 60,000

56 Speed management reviews Individual per carriageway km 5 10,000 25,000 40,000 10,000 25,000 40,000

57 Traffic calming Individual per carriageway km 10 12,000 20,000 30,000 8,000 12,000 18,000

59 Vertical realignment (major) Individual lane km 20 8,075,000 10,094,000 14,131,000 11,536,000 14,420,000 20,188,000

61 Median Crossing Upgrade Multi intersection 10 20,000 30,000 40,000 12,000 15,000 20,000

62 Clear roadside hazards (bike lane) Individual per km 20 2,000 3,000 4,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

63 Sideslope improvement (bike lane) Individual per km 20 4,000 6,000 10,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

64 Roadside barriers (bike lane) Individual per km 20 25,000 40,000 55,000 20,000 35,000 40,000

65 Clear roadside hazards (seg MC lane) passenger side Individual per km 20 4,000 5,000 6,000 4,500 5,500 6,500

66 Sideslope improvement (seg MC lane) passenger side Individual per km 20 8,000 10,000 12,000 9,000 11,000 13,000

67 Roadside barriers (seg MC lane) passenger side Individual per km 20 75,000 113,000 375,000 225,000 338,000 1,125,000

68 Speed management reviews (MC Lane) Individual per carriageway km 5 3,333 8,333 10,000 3,333 8,333 10,000

69 Central median barrier (MC lane) Multi per km 10 150,000 225,000 750,000 450,000 675,000 2,250,000

71 Skid Resistance (paved road) Individual lane km 10 48,000 59,000 83,000 68,000 85,000 119,000

72 Skid Resistance (unpaved road) Individual per carriageway km 10 20,000 25,000 36,000 29,000 36,000 51,000

73 Pave road surface Individual lane km 10 102,000 127,000 178,000 146,000 182,000 255,000

74 Street lighting (mid-block) Individual lane km 20 283,000 353,000 495,000 404,000 505,000 707,000

75 Street lighting (intersection) Individual intersection 20 141,000 177,000 247,000 202,000 252,000 353,000

76 Street lighting (ped crossing) Individual unit 20 35,000 44,000 62,000 50,000 63,000 88,000

77 Shoulder rumble strips Individual per carriageway km 10 4,500 5,400 6,300 4,140 4,680 5,400

78 Parking improvements Individual per carriageway km 20 15,000 19,000 23,000 23,000 28,000 34,000

79 Sight distance (obstruction removal) Individual per carriageway km 20 21,000 27,000 37,000 30,000 38,000 53,000

Page 66

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

80 Pedestrian fencing Individual per carriageway km 20 101,000 127,000 177,000 145,000 181,000 253,000 Individual 81 Side road grade separated pedestrian facility intersection 20 3,535,000 4,418,000 6,185,000 5,049,000 6,312,000 8,836,000 Individual 152 Side road signalised pedestrian crossing intersection 20 20,000 25,000 30,000 15,000 18,000 20,000 Individual 153 Side road unsignalised pedestrian crossing intersection 10 800 1,200 1,500 600 800 1,000 Individual 163 Footpath provision passenger side (with barrier) per linear km 20 13,333 16,666 20,000 13,333 15,000 16,666 Individual 164 Footpath provision passenger side (informal path >1m) per linear km 10 53,000 67,000 93,000 76,000 95,000 133,000 Individual 171 Shoulder sealing driver side (<1m) per linear km 20 8,000 12,000 18,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 Individual 172 Shoulder sealing driver side (>1m) per linear km 20 8,000 12,000 18,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 Individual 173 Footpath provision driver side (adjacent to road) per linear km 20 40,000 50,000 60,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 Individual 174 Footpath provision driver side (>3m from road) per linear km 20 55,000 70,000 90,000 42,000 50,000 60,000 Individual 177 Footpath provision driver side (with barrier) per linear km 20 125,000 135,000 145,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 Individual 178 Footpath provision driver side (informal path >1m) per linear km 10 53,000 67,000 93,000 76,000 95,000 133,000 Individual 182 Realignment (sight distance improvement) lane km 20 150,000 180,000 220,000 220,000 250,000 290,000 Undivided Only 186 Central median barrier (1+1) per km 20 680,000 850,000 1,190,000 971,000 1,214,000 1,699,000 Individual 187 Clear roadside hazards (seg MC lane) driver side per km 20 4,000 5,000 6,000 4,500 5,500 6,500 Individual 188 Sideslope improvement (seg MC lane) driver side per km 20 8,000 10,000 12,000 9,000 11,000 13,000

189 Roadside barriers (seg MC lane) driver side Individual per km 20 75,000 113,000 375,000 225,000 338,000 1,125,000

190 Wide centreline Undivided Only per linear km 20 56,000 68,000 98,000 79,000 99,000 139,000

191 School zone warning - signs and markings Individual lane km 5 4,500 5,000 5,500 5,850 6,500 7,150

192 School zone warning - flashing beacon Individual unit 20 5,400 6,000 6,600 4,320 4,800 5,280

193 School zone - crossing guard/supervisor Undivided Only unit 1 9,000 10,000 11,000 11,700 13,000 14,300

* The costs are in Euros

Page 67

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

Annex 3 – Minimum 3-star safety rating standard

A 3-star EuroRAP/iRAP rating is a minimum target to achieve. For example, the government of the Netherlands has committed to achieving a 3-star minimum for its national roads by 2020. Similar targets are being used in some low- and middle-income countries in contracts for road improvements1. Increasing the Star Rating is associated with a decrease in fatal and serious injury crash costs or crash rate – about a halving in the metric by an increase of one star. The figure below shows this and the resulting dramatic reductions in crash costs at a 3-star rating2.

Figure 22: Smoothed vehicle occupant Star Ratings and fatal and serious injury costs per vehicle kilometre travelled The latest version of the EuroRAP/iRAP model released in 2014 makes achieving the 3-star target more difficult than the earlier versions. This recalibration is common in other fields too – for example, in the European New Car Assessment Programme. Recalibration is a way of improving standards through time.

1 In road improvement contracts, the percentage kilometrage with at least 3-star rating can form part of a results indicator, subject to the availability of economically viable infrastructure countermeasures. At locations where it is not economically viable to lift the Star Ratings to at least 3-stars using infrastructure countermeasures, lowering operating speeds is also be considered. 2 See http://www.irap.org/en/about-irap-3/research-and-technical- papers?download=91:relationship-between-star-ratings-and-crash-costs-the-bruce-highway- australia and http://www.irap.org/en/about-irap-3/research-and-technical- papers?download=40:crash-rate-star-rating-comparison-paper for further details.

Page 68

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

The operating speed of the road is a large factor in determining what the Star Rating will be. Roads are rated at the higher of the 85th percentile operating speed or the posted speed limit3. The figures below show the relationship of speed with Star Rating for different scenarios and illustrate the speeds at which a road may achieve 3-star or 4-star rating. Intersection frequency is also a factor.

Figure 23: Common scenarios of the relationship between speed and Star Rating

Motorway A 90 to 150km/h

Flow: 35,000 AADT Median: barrier 0-1m offset Roadside: barrier 1-5m offset Intersections: merge lane

A World Free of High Risk Roads

3 An explanation of this is provided at: http://www.irap.org/en/about-irap- 3/methodology?download=135:irap-methodology-fact-sheet-7-star-rating-bandsand http://www.irap.org/en/about-irap-3/methodology?download=143:irap-road-attribute-risk- factors-operating-speed.

Page 69

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

Motorway B 90 to 150km/h

Flow: 35,000 AADT Median: barrier 1-5 m offset Roadside: barrier 1-5m offset Intersections: merge lane

A World Free of High Risk Roads

Expressway A 70 to 130km/h

Flow: 35,000 AADT Median: metal barrier 0-1m offset Roadside: poles 5-10m offset Intersections: merge lane

A World Free of High Risk Roads

In some situations it is not difficult to see how to increase the safety and the Star Rating of road sections in order to achieve 3-star. Some of the more obvious countermeasures which benefit various road users and have been used in other EuroRAP and iRAP studies to increase the Star Rating include:

 Safety barriers  Increasing the paved shoulder width on the driver-side between the lane and the barrier

Page 70

SENSoR Star Rating Report - GREECE

 Turn lanes at intersections  Roundabouts  Good delineation, including at curves  Paved shoulders (especially if they incorporate space for bicycles)  Footpaths  Traffic calming

Page 71